Surrender & Self-Loathing: The Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check

He's not teaching intolerance, he's speaking of awareness. Two different things. Britain did not have to be intolerant of Germany, they needed to be aware.

 

China. Survived through ALL types of hell.

 

And guess what - it wasn't the Christians who you feel are a 'greater threat' that beheaded him.

It was Islamofascist Muslims.

 

oh for christs sake...You aren't aware of all the dynasties throughout the history of China? It's bloody past?
They didn't even abolish slavery until 1910..and THAT'S very arguable.

Using China as an example might not be the best tactic...
here:
Chinese civilization originated in various regional centers along both the Yellow River and the Yangtze River valleys in the Neolithic era, but the Yellow River is said to be the Cradle of Chinese Civilization. The written history of China can be found as early as the Shang Dynasty (ca. 1700 BC – ca. 1046 BC).[1] Oracle bones with ancient Chinese writing from the Shang Dynasty have been radiocarbon dated to as early as 1500 BC.[2] The origins of Chinese culture, literature and philosophy developed during the Zhou Dynasty (1045 BC-256 BC).

The Zhou Dynasty began to bow to external and internal pressures in the 8th century BC. The ability of the Zhou to control its regional lords lessened, and the kingdom eventually broke apart into smaller states, beginning in the Spring and Autumn Period and reaching full expression in the Warring States period. In 221 BC, Qin Shi Huang united the various warring kingdoms and created the first Chinese empire. Successive dynasties in Chinese history developed bureaucratic systems that enabled the Emperor of China to directly control vast territories.

The conventional view of Chinese history is that of alternating periods of political unity and disunity, with China occasionally being dominated by Inner Asian peoples, most of whom were in turn assimilated into the Han Chinese population. Cultural and political influences from many parts of Asia, carried by successive waves of immigration, expansion, and cultural assimilation, are part of the modern culture of China.


# 2 Ancient era

* 2.1 Xia Dynasty (ca. 2100-ca. 1600 BC)
* 2.2 Shang Dynasty (ca. 1700-1046 BC)
* 2.3 Zhou Dynasty (1066-256 BC)
* 2.4 Spring and Autumn Period (722-476 BC)
* 2.5 Warring States Period (476-221 BC)

# 3 Imperial era

* 3.1 Qin Dynasty (221-206 BC)
* 3.2 Han Dynasty (202 BC–AD 220)
* 3.3 Wei and Jin Period (AD 265–420)
* 3.4 Wu Hu Period (AD 304–439)
* 3.5 Southern and Northern Dynasties (AD 420–589)
* 3.6 Sui Dynasty (AD 589–61
* 3.7 Tang Dynasty (AD 618–907)
* 3.8 Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms (AD 907–960)
* 3.9 Song, Liao, Jin, and Western Xia Dynasties (AD 960–1234)
* 3.10 Yuan Dynasty (AD 1271–136
* 3.11 Ming Dynasty (AD 1368–1644)
* 3.12 Qing Dynasty (AD 1644–1911)

 

I am, BUUUUUTTTTT it still exists as China.

 

except that in our case, the government isn't oppressive, corrupt, or intolerable. the government is simply doing what the people want. the problem is that the people are stupid, and they blame the government when they should be blaming themselves. we could easily end corrupt wall street practices. but you have idiot conservatives who oppose tight regulation. we could easily solve the debt problem. but you have idiots who refuse to raise taxes or cut medicare. these idiots then blame the government--but they should just blame themselves. we could easily stop oil spills. but you have idiots who refuse to ban drilling. at the heart of every problem, you have a bunch of idiot americans who complain about a problem while supporting policies that make the problem worse. so who's at fault here?

and i never said that at the heart of every civil war, the people were irrational. I'm saying that if the gun-toting conservatives of the US do start a civil war, THEY would be irrational.

you claim that the scapegoat for all our problems is cultural diversity. That is nonsensical. Our problems are mostly due to the stupidity of conservative Americans. Unfortunately, these problems are not easy to fix. You can't fix stupid.

 

but is was christians wearing US military uniforms who blew up hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis

 

This government isn't corrupt or repressive?
The government is doing what the people want?..Did you really say that?
You can't be serious.

Looking at your post..Apparently we can solve all of our problems with:

more regulation...(bigger government)
higher taxes (bigger government)
and to stop producing oil.

Ok..I don't think that's going to work, but ok.

Again, you can't be serious.

I haven't blamed cultural diversity alone for our problems..I just spent 4 pages pointing out numerous variable factors that contribute to revolution/civil war. multiculturalism is one of them.

 

Neville Chamberlin believed the Nazis were honorable and would respond to appeasement and tolerance, just like the liberal left is touting today with the Muslim jihadists.

We will be in the same position as 1939 Austria before we know it with that cowardice.

 

well, then you're one of the people I'm talking about. one of the people who supports lowering the debt, without cutting spending or raising taxes. One of the people who thinks we can drill without spilling or thinks we can expect wall street to police themselves. so you ARE the problem I've been talking about. You have completely irrational expectations, and you blame the government when it fails to meet those expectations. Classic irrational thinking.


The government is definitely doing what conservatives want. Conservatives don't want to cut medicare. The government isn't cutting medicare. Conservatives don't want higher taxes, the government hasn't raised taxes. Conservatives don't want to regulate wall street--the government hasn't really regulated them. Conservatives don't want to ban oil drilling. The government hasn't banned oil drilling.

The problem is that conservatives don't like the results of their own policies. Because when you refuse to cut medicare and refuse to raise taxes, you end up with loads of debt. When you refuse to ban drilling, you end up with spills. When you refuse to regulate wall street, you end up with financial crisis. And conservatives don't like these things either. This is because the conservatives are unreasonable and irrational. They are unwilling to compromise their 'values' to satisfy the demands of reality. And therefore, they will always be unsatisfied with the government, no matter what it does. And they will always claim that the government is oppressive and incompetent, when in reality, it is all just a result of their own inability to compromise their own beliefs, and prioritize their goals.

in life, you can't get everything you want without sacrificing something. You can't lose weight while eating more and exercising less. Conservatives seem to think that they can. You have to compromise some of your principles to satisfy other priorities. And the concept of compromising on some of your values is not within the conservative American vocabulary. The inability of conservatives to compromise their own values is what leads to this irrational thinking.

 

You used the word "you" 10 times in that post. You then implied that I was irrational twice and used "conservative" seven times.
So I'm one of the "idiots" you keep referring to.

You just can't stick to the topic without going off on these emotional tangents.

Educate me on how we can fix everything. What are your specific ideas that will correct everything?
Pretend that I'm an irrational conservative idiot and need to be schooled, ok?.
I defer to your superior knowledge of economics..Where did you get your degree again?

You've pointed out all the problems and assigned the blame...Now give me all the answers.

Specific answers to specific problems..Not bumper sticker slogans.or one line sarcastic retorts....Give me some real, meaningful, practical solutions.

So far we have
Raise taxes
Stop producing oil
Stricter regulation.

How much should we raise taxes? On whom?

Who do you want to regulate and specifically what regulations would you like to see imposed and why?

Specifically, when should we stop producing oil? Tomorrow? Tonight?
Specifically, what should we use as an energy source when we do stop producing oil?

I'm REALLY interested in your replies.
Thanks


EDIT:

oops I missed the edit on your last paragraph..There were several more "you"'s ( total 17 now) a few more "conservatives" and one or two more "irrational"..so my total count was wrong...
I see you consider me personally to be at fault for SOMETHING according to your lecture, although it isn't clear what exactly. It really appears you're frustrated or have some latent unresolved hostility that you're transferring to me personally for some reason..but what do I know.

 

the problem is you think we can fix everything, which is completely nonsensical, and is the perfect demonstration of just how irrational you are. If this is your starting premise, then you are bound to fail.

The bottom line is you cannot 'fix everything.' You cannot reduce the debt without raising taxes and lowering spending. You have to make some things worse in order to make other things better. This is the fundamental lesson that you are unable to compute.

The lesson I'm trying to teach you, is that you must prioritize. You cannot say you want to lower the debt, and oppose tax increases and oppose medicare cuts. So pick one thing, and sacrifice the other two:

1. You can prioritize debt mitigation, which requires tax increases and medicare cuts (which is what I would support).
2. You can prioritize tax cuts, which require debt accumulation and spending cuts.
3. Or you can prioritize spending increases, which requires tax increases and debt accumulation.

And we can intelligently discuss which of these priorities we want to have. But what we cannot do is what you are doing, which is to oppose all three, and pretend that it's all the government's fault.

 

Love to see how liberals support the military....

 

liberals support the people in the military (by supporting increased spending for healthcare and social services for servicemen, for example). conservatives support the concept of the military (ie, they are happy when the military kills people and blows stuff up).

 

Your whole previous post was about how idiot irrational conservatives (like me) are responsible for everything wrong in the country.

It's easy to assign blame but not having a realistic alternative doesn't impress anyone except the most hahahaha "irrational" sycophants.

So.Right off the bat in the first sentence you just can't resist telling me what (you presume) I think and how it's "nonsensical" and I'm "bound to fail"....and I'm "irrational" (again). I'm "unable to compute" "fundamental lessons"

You just have to make it about "me".

I never said or implied any of these things..
Classic strawman making up things I never said and pretending to refute them.

The rest is mostly stringing together of a bunch of essentially meaningless generalized jargon.

E mail Rahm and tell him you've got it all figured out and explain it to him like you did to me.
If they knew how easy it was I know they'd be very appreciative of the help. See what he thinks of your "plan".


..and... lets' see...yes...the last couple of sentences are more contrived strawman arguments that I never said.

What I DID ask you to answer (and you dodged) was to support your premises on these topics (which you alleged that I was against) in your earlier post when I asked for your solutions:

Raise taxes
Stop producing oil
Stricter regulation.

How much should we raise taxes? On whom?

Who do you want to regulate and specifically what regulations would you like to see imposed and why?

Specifically, when should we stop producing oil? Tomorrow? Tonight?
Specifically, what should we use as an energy source when we do stop producing oil?


You sir, are exposed as a verbose fraud and troll who hasn't the SLIGHTEST clue how to participate in or the procedures of a meaningful debate and are completely bereft of any realistic, workable solutions.

ok. I'm done here.Off you go to the ignore bin.

have a great day.

 

apparently, you are so dense, that logic bounces off you. You don't seem to understand that you cannot logically oppose tax increases, spending cuts, and debt accumulation at the same time. This is simple logic. I dunno why you are being so dense. I guess conservatives are known for being dense.

as for your questions, they are easy.

1. raise taxes on rich people
2. regulate banks--put investment banks under the same restrictions that commercial banks have to face--strict capital requirements, limits on leverage ratios, etc.
3. stop drilling for oil tonight
4. we can continue to use oil for energy source--banning offshore drilling will not affect that, because oil is a fungible global commodity. Banning drilling does not measurably affect the global supply or price of oil. (although honestly, I don't really care if we offshore drill or not. I don't really care if we spill oil or not. these are local issues for the people who live near the gulf--not my business).

These are REAL workable ideas. Unlike the illogical contradictory positions that you seem to advocate.

 

I am surprised Americans do not loathe themselves more.

They have many reasons to.

 

The liberal/progressive left loathes American enough for the 78% of normal Americans.

 

self-loathing is not really an american trait. americans have two modes. one is blind optimism. the other is blaming everyone else for their own problems.

 

I am surprised Americans do not loathe themselves more.

Don't they have plenty of reasons to?

Oops, I repeat myself.

Must have been a statement of conviction.

 

This video is silly. It completely ignores the fact that England and France forced Germany to pay for WW I. Does that sound like appeasement to you? It was that debt that lead to the Weimar's collapse and Hitler's rise to power. Need I explain to you the concept of hyperinflation? People asked 'Where's my buying power?' Hitler answered: 'The Jews took it!'

The video also failed to address American Isolationism prior to WW II. That had less to do with appeasement than it did with the fact that we didn't want to get dragged into another European war.

The so called injustices the Iranians endured included 26 years of oppression thanks to a US staged coup. The US isn't entirely to blame for Iran's problems, but you'd have to be stupid to say we didn't contribute to their problems. Iran's prime minister before the 1953 was Mohammad Mosaddegh, a gentleman and a scholar. We took him out to preserve our oil interests. That's not mere speculation. That's established fact. The records are wide open.

This doesn't justify the raid on the US embassy, but it shows why the US was easy to hate in Iran. Who knows how Iran might have turned out if we had not intervened. The Shaw was losing power.

 

I couldn't agree less.

Every empire or nation surviving in the world today, or those which thrived for century after century in the past, is or was "multicultural". Only in Europe and the United States, and only since since the nineteenth century, has it been normal for most countries to have only a single language. And speaking a single language doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of other cultural variety amongst a population

And that's what underpins what you fondly imagine is your "case". You can look at every constitutional change or redrawing of political borders in history as being the "conquest" or "overthrow" of a civilisation, and then you can triumphantly prove that whatever was "overthrown" was in some respect multicultural. A very clever argument, but all the civilisations which have done the conquering and overthrowing have been multicultural too. If racially pure, religiously intolerant and culturally conservative states always prevailed in competition with what I'm going to term "normal" states then you would have some excuse for appealing to history, but I defy you to try to demonstrate any such thing. Your ethnically homogenous Third Reich didn't last a thousand years, did it? It was conquered and overthrown by a mess of Europeans and Americans, Arabs and Africans, Caucasians, Central Asians and Indians.

It's also worth remembering that there is no International Standard for defining a multicultural society. It's entirely subjective. If you feel that there are people in your town so different from you that they should be rounded up and sent on their way, then you'll feel that the town is "mulicultural" and, if not, then you won't. A population of immigrants from Britain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Scandinavia and Poland all living in a part of mainland Europe would be considered to be one of the most heterogenous and multicultural societies on earth. Put the very same people in the United States, and they can be redefined as "white Christians", whose civilisation is under threat from Arab and Mexican minorities.

 

Chamerlain didn't spend the decades leading up to 1939 manipulating Austrian politics, propping up puppet regimes that tortured and killed at least tens of thousands of people, send in proxy enemies to murder and rape Austrians for decades.

Seems to me, the Iranians and Afghans and Iraqis have a lot more legitimate reasons to hate Americans than the Austrians had to hate anyone.

 

If, and this is a gigantic "if", we were to buy the old line about Austria being "the Nazis' first victim" then the date would be 1938.

 

If you're looking at it in a way that Austria was the Nazi's first victim, then they weren't their first victim. Germany was.