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.
I have been here 40 years and find
the article partly true. Have been thinking
about this lately and article makes sense to me.
I am just trying to make heads and tails
of all the hate that suddenly found a voice.
There is a lot of goodness here too obviously.
Yes there is good, but it seems at times that the bullies are running amok beating up the little guys and stealing their lunches while the peanut gallery is laughing and cheering them on.
America didn't suffer in this way. It's soldiers fought and died, but the folks at home just did war work, and waited for the boys to come home, and mourn the dead. Then America boomed on the back of the devastation in Europe. So America never had the destruction suffered by the UK. So, things we introduced like UHC didn't happen in America. As far as I've read, Americans got good health cover with their jobs, so a need for UHC never happened. The public were happy with things as they were.
America's explosion in health care costs started with WW II, actually. When the war ended, wage ceilings were thrown up because it was seen as unfair for some companies to be able to exploit economies of scale to offer higher salaries to get the best workers. When that happened, companies began adding benefits as part of overall compensation, and the government allowed that. That was why health and dental became tied to employment - capitalism trying to find a way around government meddling in their business. Prior to WW II, medical care was like anything else. If you wanted it, you bought it, and th consumer was aware of every cost. Government meddling and employers becoming the primary insurer took the consumer out of te cost evaluation business, and here we are.
The thinly veiled insult about America not suffering devastation like Europe or Asia is beyond laughable, since the reason America didn't suffer that devastation comes down to a few factors that are completely unrelated to American government or culture:
Atlantic Ocean
Pacific Ocean
Logistic difficulties of bringing devastation to America, via the two largest bodies of water on the planet.
Europe and Asia choosing the battlefield long before America was even involved in the war.
If you have issues with where WW II took place, I'd take that up with Angela Merkel and Shinzo Abe, as they lead the two nation who decided that WW II should take place and where. Americans just pitched in to help the Allied forces. We didn't choose in which playground to hold the party.
Wow, you're a mind reader........you should give Las Vegas a try........
I was kidding on the 'savaging'. Just a word I use everyday. I can take whatever is dealt out here. I'm not a shrinking violet.
My commentary in the original post was almost all words used in the link. I have already explained to another poster, I am not used to posting in this way. I made a mistake.
I agree with the OP? I said that where? What I said was it struck a cord with me, in understanding why Americans are suspicious of so many things. I asked for views on the link from readers. That's all.
America is a 'puzzle' to me. Doesn't mean I don't like America and Americans.
I stand by every post I have ever posted here in 'Politics.' Every single one.
Americans are like the people of any other nation, I'd imagine, where outside criticism is viewed with a combination of suspicion, disagreement, indifference, and yes, disdain. You aren't American, yet you post quite a bit about what America should do, how it should govern, what concerns you about America and its citizens, etc. You may have forgotten your UHC thread, but I haven't.
If Americans, Russians, Somalis or anyone else from a country not called England were posting the same things about England, I'd fully expect you to default to the same suspicion, disagreement, indifference and yes, disdain, as any Brit would, given that you'd be getting said commentary from people who don't live, work in and contribute to your freaking country or its people/culture.
Nationalism exists. Even in the Eurozone. Americans are no different, nor are we worse or better than anyone in that regard.
The fear of government coming for your guns. The very idea is ridiculous. Going door to door demanding the handing over of guns? It would be a bloodbath! No government could ever even consider it. Yet, this fear runs deep is some Americans.
I have never lived among Americans, and got into long conversations on subjects that concern them. Well, just once on a plane flying from Atlanta to Las Vegas.
I agree with you that the idea is ridiculous and indeed there would be a bloodbath. More than likely the outbreak of another civil war. However those that wish to ban guns think that's a remote possibility and that armed civilians could never take on the US military.
It's highly unlikely that the Pentagon's arsenal would be used against American civilians. If so the military would be destroying their own friends, family and neighborhoods. There would be absolutely nothing left for them to come back to. Not only that but if the civilian population were destroyed who'd supply the military with supplies? There'd be nobody left to work the factories and farm the fields. All commerce would come to a grinding halt. My guess is that they would disobey orders, and in all probability would use those weapons against those that ordered them to do so.
About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. As the armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces. The United States with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.
The gun banner's don't even take into consideration that a large percentage of active duty, retired military and law enforcement personal are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Law. It wouldn't surprise me if they joined forces with the civilian population that takes up arms in the fight against a tyrannical form of government.
Of course the fear runs deep as there are many Democrat politicians who have proposed just that. Australia's gun laws and forced confiscation schemes have been mentioned God only knows how many times by Democrat politicians to model US gun laws after. Congressman Eric Swalwell (D) California has written a bill proposing an Australian like buy back scheme and criminalizing those that don't comply.*
Since you've: "never lived among Americans, and got into long conversations on subjects that concern them." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in not understanding the politics about guns or how passionate Americans are about them, either for or against.
No One Wants to Ban or Confiscate Guns huh? These Quotes from Anti Gun Leaders Say Otherwise:
Quote:
Obama Calls For Nationwide Gun Ban After Florida Shooting
Former President Barack Obama has demanded an immediate ban on guns following the Florida school shooting on Wednesday.
As an Illinois State Senator:
Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes.--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-record-may-be-gold-mine-for-critics/
Former top Democratic mayor Ed Koch
said he wants to "ban all guns for everyone except law enforcement."
The Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder
doesn’t suggest banning or confiscating guns. He just thinks we should brainwash the American people into wanting to get rid of guns.
Gun-Banning U.S. Conference Of Mayors ... - The Daily Caller
dailycaller.com/2017/06/30/gun-banning-u-s-conference-of...
Gun-Banning U.S. Conference Of Mayors Attacks National ... in a friend of the court brief that argued in favor of ... The Daily Caller ...
Frank Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from New Jersey:
“We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.” 5
Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator:
“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”
Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California:
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” 8
Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California:
“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” 9
William Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri:
” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”
Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States:
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”
John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island:
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!”
Major Owens, U.S. Representative from New York:
“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”
Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois:
“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”
Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky:
"An assault weapons ban is just the beginning. She also says that a complete ban on handguns could be possible through state and local action."
Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California:
“If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”
NY Governor Andrew Cuomo:
“Confiscation could be an option…mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”
San Diego’s [police chief] Lansdowne:
"It may take a generation, but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws."
Bonnie Schaefer:
"I really don't personally think anyone should have a gun" and that keeping guns from "mentally ill people and criminals" was not enough.
In 2013 Feinstein tried again. This time the bill contained 157 specific firearms, “copies, duplicates, variants, or altered facsimiles with the capability of” of the 157 specific firearms, a one feature test for defining an “assault weapon”, and a ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Quote:
*Democratic congressman: Force gun owners to get rid of ... www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem...
In a major departure from prior gun control proposals, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., is calling for the government to ban assault weapons, and require owners to get rid of them.
*Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want | The ...
dailycaller.com/2018/05/03/eric-swalwell-gun-control...
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons and instate a federal gun buy back program for those who own them.
Political positions of Dianne Feinstein - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of...
Political positions of Dianne Feinstein ... Gun politics. Feinstein ... along with Representative Carolyn McCarthy from New York, proposed a bill that would "ban ...
Poll: 82% of Dems favor banning all semiautomatic weapons ...
hotair.com/archives/2018/03/01/poll-82-dems...
Poll: 82% of Dems favor banning all semiautomatic weapons, evenly split on banning all guns. Allahpundit Posted at 9:21 pm on March 1, 2018
Democrats renew push for gun bans at DNC, convinced mass ... www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/28/...
Democrats renew push for gun bans, convinced mass shootings have changed ... politicians cower behind the gun lobby ... to favor gun rights ...
Survey: Majority of Democrats want to ban semi-automatics ... www.washingtonexaminer.com/survey-majority-of...
When pro-gun control advocates tell you they don’t ... Politics White House ... 82 percent of surveyed Democrats say they favor a ban on semi ...
Um, I take it you never studied history. You don't quite seem to understand how to analyze it.
The point he was making is not an insult, it's simply a recognition of a fact. Yes, that fact is is exactly as you described it. But whoever started the war is irrelevant to this particular point.
What matters is the result, which in the context of this thread, is that America, by virtue of others starting a war on their own ground and not ours, escaped the devastation and humiliation that caused the others to change their way of life. A million different sociological trends developed in the U.S. over the last 70-plus years because of that fact. Pretty simple, really.
That's what we're discussing here. If you don't understand the nuances of historical analysis, perhaps you'd be able to make more relevant posts on other threads? History is full of facts you'd probably be offended by, and we can't have that, can we?
History doesn't offend me in the slightest. But I can spot when someone is using a point of history as a thinly veiled insult aimed at folks in the present.
Had Americans suffered said devastation, so goes the theory, we'd be doing X Y or Z thing like places that were devastated.
And the "thing" in question was adoption of universal health care, which cannot possibly be inferred from devastation to a nation from warfare or lack thereof.
The thinly veiled insult about America not suffering devastation like Europe or Asia is beyond laughable, since the reason America didn't suffer that devastation comes down to a few factors that are completely unrelated to American government or culture:
Atlantic Ocean
Pacific Ocean
Logistic difficulties of bringing devastation to America, via the two largest bodies of water on the planet.
Europe and Asia choosing the battlefield long before America was even involved in the war.
If you have issues with where WW II took place, I'd take that up with Angela Merkel and Shinzo Abe, as they lead the two nation who decided that WW II should take place and where. Americans just pitched in to help the Allied forces. We didn't choose in which playground to hold the party.
I don't do veiled insults...... I come right out and say it. That's why so much of my best work disappeared from these hallowed halls......
By luck, you were too far away to suffer bombing from the Germans. We weren't. Terrible raids that killed thousands of people, especially early in the war.
There was a famous political cartoon published in the Daily Mirror newspaper at the end of the war. It showed a wounded soldier handing over a piece of paper to an authority figure. The paper had 'Victory and Peace in Europe' printed on it. The caption below the cartoon said, 'Don't lose it again.'
There were promises after the end of the First World War.......'building a land fit for heroes.' Well, it never happened, and after the Second World War the public demanded something better. So, public housing was built, and slums were cleared, and the NHS came into being.
We went into a much more socialist type of thinking, with Capitalism kept in check. You had the McCarthy witch hunts instead........
Americans are like the people of any other nation, I'd imagine, where outside criticism is viewed with a combination of suspicion, disagreement, indifference, and yes, disdain. You aren't American, yet you post quite a bit about what America should do, how it should govern, what concerns you about America and its citizens, etc. You may have forgotten your UHC thread, but I haven't.
I start threads very rarely. I think I've only done so two or three times. I commented in the UHC thread, but I didn't start it. Glad to hear you've got a good memory.
I have been fascinated with America, and it's people all my life. At the same time I have been puzzled by many attitudes, and the seeming despising of so called failures in society. The one's who don't 'lift themselves up by their bootstraps', and the like.
I have lived in different countries including the u.s. for many years, so I speak as an outsider.
Understanding the american mentality is not that difficult. What this article is describing through the different waves of immigrants is something that was put together by Darwin in his theory of evolution. "The survival of the fittest" by Spencer, something that really applies only to animals is applied so social life. The result is the dehumanization of life.
I find ironic your interest in the american attitude when england is almost the same to america in terms of social problems when compared to the rest of developed countries.
Competition over cooperation, cleverness over justice, money over human values; all this aspects of the rat race can be traced back to Darwin's observations. Again, a theory that explains animal life, not human beings. When people make fun of socialists ideas it shows their egoistic/animal instincts and forget we have grown to be social beings. The well being of society is a necessity for the further development of individuals. I'm not optimistic, most people will choose the former and be doomed to collapse, and very few will choose the latter.
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.
