HOME | DD

AtheosEmanon In reply to ??? [2017-05-24 12:39:33 +0000 UTC]

Yes, is there an issue with Paine at which you have?

It affects a great deal, the greater educated a society is, the better social and economic mobility and in cases, stability that its people have. Germany is one of those nations with higher education rates in America and yet you just praised it as doing greatly, so one cannot have it both ways.

Once again, it is not about doing or being better in this or that field, it is about judging a nation as a whole, and what one wishes to judge a nation as.

As far as your broken car analogy, the question beckons what "dents" or issues within a society at which you are judging the car by, certainly not its incarceration rates, its uninsured rates, its social and economic mobility etc.

Show me one place where the piece states that a nation needs to have cured all social ills? the piece, the very piece you commented said in its text and I quote
"I personally am of the view that no nation is number 1, because we will have to look at individual things to see which nation does this or that better. Yet if a nation wishes to call it else the number 1 nation in the world, yet lacks or falls behind many nations on the social and economic front of its people then I am unsure how a nation can earnestly state such. Every nation or all people within nations like to say MY COUNTRY IS THE GREATEST, okay but by what measure of greatness are they measuring by? I say again, America is a great country, no one, or rather I do not discount that and its ability or the possibility at which it can be better - but I am just not one of the view of AMERICA NUMBER ONE!!!! .. because there are great social and economic issues at which this country must address before I ascribe it to that, but others, as with all things will have their view"



So asking the question of which nation is number one, in a text at which I said I do not think any nation is number 1 and personally find the hmm dick measuring contests of nations needing to be seen as the best thing on earth rather laughable.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-24 19:18:50 +0000 UTC]

Paine is a socialist. He also tried to slander George Washington. He's also widely anti-religious, dismissing religious ideals based on his narrow point of view. So no, to me, he's not a credible source. Seemed more like he was angry for not getting as much time in the limelight as old Washington did.

Really? A more educated society offers more social mobility? That's the biggest lie I've ever heard. I've graduated from college 4 years ago with a Cum Laude honor and a bachelor's degree in History. My thesis paper was graded A. I haven't had a single detention in any of my years in grade school, high school, and college. All throughout my school years, I was regarded by both my teachers and classmates as one of the best students in the class, if not the best. And despite that, I've tried for four years to get a job to no avail. It's gotten so bad that the only jobs I can get are occasional tutoring sessions and trying to be a teacher, which means me and my folks have to pay to have me educated as a teacher for a teaching job. 

Also, education doesn't matter much when many jobs on the market are manual labor jobs that don't require you to have a bachelor's degree, only working experience. I labored under the illusion that degrees will get me better jobs, and I ignored many offers for jobs before I graduated. When those offers dried up and I started looking for a job with my degree, even the manual labor jobs preferred someone with work experience than someone with a degree. Which means that some high-school dropout who's done manual labor in the past has a better shot at getting a job than an educated college graduate. 

The notion that education leads to social mobility is a lie. A lie propagated by people like you living in a fantasy world. Sure, education can help you learn more about the world, but in the end, the average shopowner is going to care more about work experience than any fancy degrees you show to his face. Do you really think the methods of how to get rich are taught in everyday schools? Perhaps in business schools, perhaps in med school, perhaps in schools trained to teach you in a single craft or job, but not everyday schools. And those schools that teach those specialized crafts don't give a damn about your past academic credentials. All they want is money. 

Look at Europe nowadays. One of the best places for education. High marks in education, the youth are all well-educated. And yet the whole continent, minus Germany and Russia, are sinking in an economic abyss. An entire continent filled with the most educated people on the globe, and they can't figure out for the life of them how to get out of an economic disaster outside of putting themselves in debt to Germany or being a Russian catspaw. 

So tell me what makes a nation number 1. And it's definitely not education, since education doesn't do much nowadays to help one get a job. Certainly not the prison population, because a country can have a low prison population because they either ignore the criminals or just shoot them in the face. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-25 13:32:49 +0000 UTC]

His being anti religion matters very little, does he not have the right, as a deist to not be a fan of religion? Is there some law at which says one, as an individual must respect organized faiths?

It is not about being a credible source of great knowledge of this or that subject, it is about that quote, though I would disagree he is not a great source, he was speaking of things like social security, medicare, disability funds well over a century before American got them, but that is not what is being discussed here.

You cut off half of the sentence and put social where I said economic. I said economic mobility as well as stability, and that is actually not a lie, economists left and right have studied the matter for decades, you can pick reports from right and left which shows the benefits of an educated society, as it pertains to economic mobility and most importantly stability (though if that is the "biggest" lie you have ever heard then that is interesting)
 - -  though your paragraph is anecdotal evidence, when I am speaking of a society, of course, the individual basis may be different than what some of the greatest scholars on the issue have studied when looking at a society as a whole.

Yes, many of the jobs are manual labor, but depending on the type of labor, a level of education may be required. But the issue with that respect is since the recovery, most of the jobs have been in the service industry, a country of our size, cannot maintain by becoming a service based economy, - - which once again, you are speaking anecdotally which is fine if we are discussing you as an individual, but one narrative alone when speaking of a society is not the best way to gauge an issue.


"The notion that education leads to social mobility is a lie"
My comment said, economic mobility and stability, not social mobility.. so you set up a premise not stated and then went on with that premise.  Though we can discuss social mobility as it pertains to education if you wish, that was not stated in the specific comment,

The only time "social mobility" was mentioned, was two comments ago, but not in the context of it takes education, simply asking of the claims of being number 1 and questioning with respect to America's ranking on the social mobility studies and its middle class.

.. so it is a lie by me even though I did not say it? .. interesting.


It is not about getting rich, nowhere in the piece did it state to make every person rich the aim. So if schools taught the methods of being rich, then almost everyone who went to them would be so - but that was never stated.

Europe has issues like any place has issues, like this nation or North America has issues, but the piece is not fixing the world's issues, it asks the questions of America addressing its own issues - not having student debt exceed its credit debt, which on that front has a lot of economic impacts when you then want to buy a home or some other future foundation for economic stability.

"So tell me what makes a nation number 1. And it's definitely not education, since education doesn't do much nowadays to help one get a job. Certainly not the prison population, because a country can have a low prison population because they either ignore the criminals or just shoot them in the face. "

I am of the view, as just stated to you in the very comment you mentioned, no nation is number 1, but if a nation boasts of it being number 1, then yes, education rankings would matter, as would its healthcare rankings, as would its economic stability and most importantly mobility of it among its middle class, as would justice reform, military etc.


"Certainly not the prison population, because a country can have a low prison population because they either ignore the criminals or just shoot them in the face. "

.. or a country can have high prison population because they fill their prison with non violent drug users.. there are two sides to said coin.


So for me, it is not about a country being NUMBER 1, because in my travel around this great world, it seems everyone thinks themselves the best country on earth, it is about the country of my birth, addressing its own issues because RAH RAH GO AMERICA NUMBER 1 !!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-25 19:00:39 +0000 UTC]

No, but his dismissal of religion comes from a very shallow point of view. Also, his slandering of Washington showed a dubious part of his character. Which means he's no authority here. 

Economic mobility? Really? You're going to resort to that excuse? Economic mobility lies upon how much money one can earn. So it is the same as social mobility. And that doesn't get affected by how many degrees you have. Again, look at Europe. The most educated place in the world outside of Japan, and they're falling apart by the seams in terms of economics so badly that Germany is becoming their debtor because they're all falling into Germany's debt.

And again, levels of education are useless to most of these jobs. Most of them require JOB EXPERIENCE, not degrees. Maybe for medical jobs and specialized jobs, but those schools require loads of money to get in first. 

Again, the issues facing America are nowhere near as bad as those facing Europe. Pogroms by Muslims, a failing economy, the Russian juggernaut posed to strike. Comparing those problems to America's, American problems seem like bug bites in comparison.

As for Asia, we have war between China and the other Asian nations, with North Korea preparing nukes, as well as violent religious conflicts between Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and Hindus. Oh, and developed nations like China and Japan have a population deficit problem, what with them not having enough young people to take care of the old generation, while nations like India and the Philippines have an overpopulation problem. So, conflict between religions, possible nuclear war, and one side having a population deficit while another having overpopulation as a problem.

As for Africa, not much needs to be said. Wars between Christians and Muslims, wars between ethnic tribes, economic stagnation and staggering poverty, again, comparing that to America is like comparing the plight of a crucified man to the plight of a guy in high school detention.

As for the Middle East, we have ISIS, we have Islamic radicalism, and we have the usual bickering between Islamic despots and kings. 

Developed nations in the West like Canada and Russia suffer a massive population decline, which will soon leave these massive countries with a very small population to hold down their turf. Which explains why Russia is trying for one last push now, because once their population declines, there ain't nothing putting that Humpty-Dumpty back on the wall.

So, yeah, America has issues, yes. But again, compared to the rest of the world, they have it rather rosy. So you can't say that America isn't number 1 when not only are Americans faced with less problems than the rest of the world, but their society is less broken than the rest of the world. They still have the strongest economy and the strongest military. So by any definition of the word, America is still number 1. Bitching about its issues doesn't change anything, not when other parts of the world have way WORSE issues facing them, like local and religious wars, population deficits, or economies falling apart. Compared to that bullshit, America looks downright rosy and pristine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-26 11:10:50 +0000 UTC]

Not shallow at all, he looks at the text of a religion and finds it contemptable, such is life. Your premise lacks reason, so because someone Washington after Washington had lost a number of battles that means his words lack meaning in other venues? Makes no sense, that is like saying hey if you attacked Washington for being a slave-owning piece of shit then hey! no matter what we cannot listen to you on any other subject at which would have absolutely nothing to do with Washington. It seems you are setting up the Washington red herring to try and discredit pPaine, even though the words of which are quoted, had nothing to do with Washington.

Resort to that excuse? How is it an excuse to look at a society and the best means at which a nation is economically viable, stable and allows its people mobility to attain such?

Actually it is not the same, you can have a very wealthy society at which evolves very slow socially even as it attains more and more wealthy infused in a society. So these are not interchangeable terms when discussing the economic mobility of a society and the social mobility of a society.

"Most of these jobs" Since we have not spoken of specific jobs and more so societal advancement as it pertains to certain fields, at which does require education since, once again, a country of our size cannot survive with simply being a service based economy.

Who spoke of anything about the issues facing America is as bad or good as Europe? I made it clear, I am simply speaking of the issues we need to address, you keep saying at least we are not ... or that. It is not about being this or that country, it is looking at the issues within our country, and addressing those issues.

 - - We are discussing the issues in America, and you go as for Asia, once again, the piece is about America addressing its economic and social issues, which does not exist in a vacuum but at which I do not think anyone can look at this country and go. we do everything right and there is nothing to improve, woo hoo number 1.

But if you wish to discuss the issues of Asian Nations, the more China and NK ones or the Middle East ones, we can.

"As for Africa, not much needs to be said. Wars between Christians and Muslims, wars between ethnic tribes, economic stagnation and staggering poverty, again, comparing that to America is like comparing the plight of a crucified man to the plight of a guy in high school detention."

But you are the one who keeps making said comparison, go back and read the text of the piece, I spoke of the issues that we should address in this country and this county alone, some of which has been remedied since this piece was written back in 2012, some have not.

Russia has been trying to become a super power for decades, they see the Middle East drilling as their grand push to that venue, will they get it? We shall see, we do know because of US meddling in the region for 70 years that those nations of a general distrust of us, and especially in Syria, we have been meddling in Syria since 1949 according to a 1956 congressional report entitled the "Bruce-Lovett" report ...


Your ending paragraph, shows the blind spot in your premise, no one has ever stated America is not a great country, I spoke of still being able to be a better country by addressing some of our economic, social, judicial ills in our society without the hmm childlike view of a mother of NO!!! IT IS THE GREATEST NO MATTER WHAT!

Once again, if you wanna believe it is number 1, have at it, I said from the statrt.. and even in the piece itself that people will have their own  views.. but I am not like some OH YOU MUST AGREE WITH MY VIEW OR BAD. . I find that rather hmm childlike but that is the general view people resort to when discussion of the issues in America. Yes, if the only measure one looked at America was its economy and military, then sure it would be that, but what makes a society is more than its military and its economic power.

I as always, will address any further comments as I see them, I suspect this will just keep going in circles but such is life.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-26 17:04:51 +0000 UTC]

Again, Paine's rejection of religion, once read and examined, are very narrow. He just hates it because of what it seems to be, not what it is. Also, I don't remember Paine attacking Washington for slave-owning. In fact, most of the Founding Fathers were slaveowners. You'd have to attack others like Jefferson who are also slave-owners, yet I don't remember Paine attacking Jefferson.

Again, economic mobility is attained by work experience, not education. Not by education anymore. And once again, economic mobility works if you have an economy that actually works. Europe's economy is failing despite the high education levels. What they need there is capitalism and less socialism, not more education. They're already well-learned. But it isn't saving them in economic problems. Again, there's a reason why Germany's becoming powerful in Europe again. They're the only economy not to sink.

And what do you define by a wealthy society? Wealth and social mobility go hand-in-hand. Nobles who are poorer than rich bourgeoisie families marry said bourgeoisie families or sell their titles for wealth. The wealthier a society is, like Venice or the Dutch Republic, the more socially mobile people can be. There's more jobs to be had, money to be made, and that helps the common bum off the street grow into having his own house, his own land. That's how kings and nobles slowly gave way to capitalists and corporations-the former don't make as much money as the latter, so they become indebted to the latter and eventually lose their purpose.

And by what judgement do you make that a country like ours can't survive on a service based economy? Service-based jobs are the only jobs available, and they all require work experience. And those specialized jobs like IT and medical jobs are very selective as to who they take in, and can easily expel people for the tiniest of reasons. I've seen educated nurses who served for years get fired over tiny altercations. I've seen IT-educated folks be unable to find a job because corporations moved operations elsewhere. The only jobs that are flourishing now are service jobs that require work experience, not education.  So don't make me laugh. Service jobs are here to stay. End of story.

You take these issues and say "America can't be number 1 because of X" and I show you how other nations and areas of the world have it worse, which SINKS YOUR ARGUMENT. Being number 1 doesn't mean having a goddamn utopia. Being number 1 means being less messed up than everyone else. Number 1 doesn't mean perfect, it just means the best of the bunch. So if I were to go into a garage, and all the cars are busted, the number 1 car would be the one which has the least amount of damage. None of the cars are pristine or perfect, so the title of number 1 goes to the least wrecked car in the lot.

As for Russia, they've been colluding with their own "allies" in the Middle East. Syria, which could have annihilated ISIS with Russian help but chooses not to so as to force everyone who opposes ISIS to their side. Iran, which is practically a Shiite version of ISIS. They're no saints here, no better than the US.

And again, your argument ignores the fact that being number 1 doesn't mean "perfect". No country on this planet is perfect. Number 1 means the best among them-nowhere does it say that number 1 means perfection. So again, if you can't come up with a country that is better than America, then America is number 1. No questions asked. Because number 1 doesn't mean perfect, it means the best, and if all the choices are broken, then the least broken choice would automatically be number 1. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-26 18:34:25 +0000 UTC]

.. As always, I will answer when I see a reply as I suspect this will be going in circles for another few days.. we shall see for weeks/months

"He just hates it because of what it seems to be"

He was a deist, so to the deistic belief, God created the earth and pass that does not take an active role in it, so yes, they would find it contemptible faiths at which speaks to a God taking an active role in the lives of man. So yes, to the deist, organized religion would be held in contempt because it is greatly contradictory to their belief structure. Should he have praised it though it was in direct conflict with his personal faith?


I never said he attacked him for his slave owning, I specifically spoke of his attacks after Washington had lost several battles. Then I said, if someone had (in the text I said if you)  had attacked Washington for being a slave owner that does not mean that they cannot speak to another thing at which has absolutely nothing to do with Washington. The quote stated, and the piece at which that is from had literally absolutely nothing to do with George Washington, yet the claim of.. he attacked Washington as if that would in any way devalue the text made absolutely no sense.

I am speaking of the economic mobility of classes, at which work experience is part of it but also the opportunity for these experiences, addressing the ills at the local levels, when it comes to the things previous mentioned and mentioned below.

I own a business, if you think education has nothing to do with the economic mobility of an individual, then hmm, interesting. If you think the economy of Europe that the issue is the robust education system, then that is a new one. Even for the more conservative economists of the continent when they speak to great fixes of the Euro, the education of its people is not often cited as the grand issue of their economic issues.

The great problem with your analogy is the continuous touting of Germany, at which has all of the same universal education system, in fact Germany a few years ago, opened its schools so that even Americans, if they so chose and got in, could go to school in Germany free of charge, if the grand issue of failure is the education system then the nation you continuously tout would then also be going through these issues.. so if it is not that issue, then clearly it is something else.


By wealthy I am speaking to the whole of a natio in that context, you can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a very few which does not do much for the social mobility of a nation if your middle and lower classes cannot afford a basic living, as such is stuck in a sort of debt servitude which we saw in the south in the late 1800s, but also in the early 20th century in the decades leading to the great depression - - which short-term fixes at the time, were what we tried  after the 1980s, tax cuts, deregulation between Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover  - which did not fix the economic issues at the times, nor after the 1980s.

That is good for the nobles and the rich of the rich.  but does very little for your middle and lower classes. which are not a society of kings and queens any longer. Oligarchs and plutocrats, yes, that is for sure.

Service based jobs are inevitably going  to not be as available as technological advances become more commonplace., we cannot stop technological advances, which would in the next 30-40 years  do away with a large chunk of the service industry, unless we become Luddites and smash all technological advances, then a nation of our size will not suffice, in the long run,  on just a service based economy. There will of course, always be certain service based jobs, but with technological advances, many of those jobs, some estimate around 20% over the next few decades will be done by machinery - the same with most of our factory jobs which you have already seen that trend starting a few decades ago. - so in a nation that grows around 2-3 million a year, other venues of employment, would then be done as things like factory jobs require far less people as you will do far more with machines.

Yes, the only jobs flourishing now are service bashed jobs, but as Bruce Bartlett, Reagan former economic advisor said for a nation of ours to survive,  we need to see more industrial jobs in that jobs figures vs 50..60..70% service based jobs, which usually pay very little and have a very high turnover rate.

I said in the text, that I do not think any nation is number 1 and I see it more or less as a nation dick size contest. The question or the text speaks specifically of a nation boasting of its position, and yet either blindly or unwilling to address some of the issues in that society for a myriad of reasons.

It does not sink my argument since my argument from the start is no nation is number 1,  America is better with respect to military and how much it gets in revenue, yet healthcare ranking, education ranking, judicial issues, policing issues, prison, and other national issues, does it ranks, on those individual things in a good position, not even speaking of number 1 .. but even in the top 5 would be fine.

ISIL is all across the Middle East, so just Assad or Syria alone would not have done away with the entirety of it, could they make more of a dent, yes they have been attacking ISIL, as have Russia.. as have we along with  Assad troops at times

No one spoke of Russia being saint..or any nation for that matter with respect to shitty, oil driven foreign policies.

It does not ignore that fact, it disagrees with that fact. I already said it is a great nation at which I do not think any nation is perfect, no one said America had to be the first in every issue by every measure that is known to man.. because no nation would be. It speaks to a nation, or rather a people of a nation at which boasts number 1, of which there are great things at which it needs to address within its system. I have been all across the globe, America is not the only country, or rather Americans are not the only country at which hold this view MY NATION IS NUMBER 1!.


It is not about another country being better than America, or worst than America for that matter, it is about before one boasts of greatness it must attempt to fix the dents in the armor of the fabric that is "America". From its economic issues of its masses, from its education issues, economic stability and mobility of its people since it already has economic viability, it speaks to addressing its judicial and racial issues within a nation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-26 22:51:58 +0000 UTC]

Depends. His reasons for hating organized religion and being a deist were based on narrow views of Christianity. It's like hating a strawman of Christianity compared to hating the real thing and thinking it is the real thing. So that's why he's no authority here. There's a difference between hating a religion for what it really is (ie. hating Catholics because they use icons, hating Muslims for stoning women to death) and hating it for something that it isn't. Paine just hates religion because it seems ignorant to him without even expanding on it.

Washington lost against the British back then when they had nothing but militia and England was at the top of its game. It's like hating Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris for not being able to beat the Hulk in an arm-wrestling. So yeah, Paine's hatred of Washington was kinda shallow, just as his hate for religion was kinda shallow. 

You own a business? Really? Mind giving me some specifics and proof? I can easily claim to be a billionaire investor for an IT company. And again, if you are a businessman, you're blind for not noticing the current climate in the west. Many over-educated college grads have all the degrees in the world but nary a job to have. The high school dropouts that got jobs before the economy crashed have a better chance of getting a job now than the people who stayed in school because they were told it would get them a good job.

And again, Germany has the same school system as the rest of Europe. But that's not what sets it apart from the rest of Europe. What sets it apart is its robust economy. The rest of Europe are just as smart as Germany in terms of education. What they don't share is a working economy that can afford to lend money to indebted nations without falling into crippling debt themselves.

Then that's not a wealthy society. Many poor countries today have very wealthy upper classes with the poor living in barrios, in makeshift huts, etc.. China has a wealthy upper class, but it's still a second world country because most of its people live in crippling poverty earning less than $2 a day in their jobs. What a wealthy society is would be one where not only does the nation command a respectable GDP, but the gap between rich and poor isn't so wide. Or, one where even the poor have access to a robust welfare system so they don't starve to death, like here in the US, where food stamps and welfare care for those who are poor.

Except technological advances have done nothing to reduce the need for service jobs. Only the most high-tech companies can afford to replace people with robots. Your average stores on the street and construction jobs are still using flesh-and-blood workers. Outside of large stores like Walmart, Target, or Massive food chains like McDonalds, most other companies still use blood and flesh workers. Also, many of these new mechanical replacements for workers tend to fail half the time, so an owner of a Target store would look pretty embarrassed if he fired half his workers and replaced them with machines, only for the machines to fail and for the customers to ask for workers. It's going to take more than a few decades before machines phase out human workers completely, and even then, only for rich companies. Technological replacements are the modern day versions of slaves in the past, where only the richest of people can afford to even have slaves. 

So then why bitch about America not being number 1? If no nation is number 1 then why bitch about America not being number 1? Apparently your idea of a nation that is number 1 would be either Utopia or Valhalla. And that's quite impossible given the human condition. And from an objective standpoint, America is still number 1, because compared to the rest of the world, its problems and its living standards aren't as broken or bad. It's still bad, but it's the least amount of bad. No gangs running around raping girls, no wars between drug gangs and the government, no wars between religious denominations, and the poor actually have a welfare system to mooch off of.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-27 04:04:12 +0000 UTC]

It is just after 12 am, so I will be off until 9 or 10, any replies back before then will be answered then, if answered after that then I will answer when I see it and see how long this goes.

It had nothing to do with a narrow view of Christianity, he also in "The Age of Reason" spoke of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as he was known an as a studier of the text. So after reading the text, it would make sense since Christianity was the prevailing faith in both his old country and new, that that would be what he spoke of the most with respect to the social and religious structure of those he was around the most. So, to someone whose belief it was that god takes no active role, a faith at which states the deity does would be held in contempt, just as to a Christian the idea of deism would also not jive with their faith of the idea that prayer does not work, that here is god watching over them etc.

That premise made absolutely no sense, a man can question the competency of a General after several losses, we are not speaking of science fiction of the hulk, but a military General, in this case, Washington, who lost a series of battles before he started winning that had even his supporters call into question was he the right man for the position. There is nothing wrong about that, though he and Washington had other issues between them aside from that.

Yes, which is why I speak of societal trends, and preparing for the future economy, at which would require a focus on more industrial fields than service based at which many of those jobs will not be there in the future. If one wishes to build a strong economy, they must know where the trends will take them, and us having 50..60..70% some months of the jobs being service sector jobs, is not good for the long term, nor is production keeping up with pace of population growth.

German's economic boost, comes in part, a great part, to its partnerships with worse off countries around them, which they can afford the short-term losses for the long term gains of their exports, which is working great for their economy, .. which gets back to my earlier point, industrialization, actually building things is the future of the economic world, be it in Germany, or in America.

The countries rarely consider their poorer structures, that build the wealth of the nation when discussing the wealth of the country, that is why America, according to "Feeding America, had 13 million children with food insecurity, in the richest nation one earth, and 25 million people, children, and adults, according to the USDA with food insecurity, once again in the richest nation on earth.

Because I live in America, and as a man who was brought up in a strong military family, you do not lie about what you love. America is a great country, it is a beautiful country and as such, it is a country that I know has the capabilities to remedy its shortcomings, it has the people to do it .. but through corrupt politicians, and a plutocratic and oligarchic hold on our politicians, it is not doing such... So that is why I "bitch" as you so inartfully said about America. I believe the nation at which has had a cop call me nigger on more than one occasion, has had police officer slap my face.. is destined for far better in its law enforcement and judicial aspects of its societies, its not so blind racial issues within its judicial and law enforcement but also its economic and education aspects,

Except it has, has you worked at a port before, or a shipping factory on a large scale? A lot of those jobs that 10..20 years ago was pretty much all human-staffed, a lot of the stacking, and organizing can be done with about half the staff with today;s technology, now for the business owner that is great to the point of more work can get done, fewer workers are needed, Those jobs, are not overly high tech, but they were/are well paying, and that is just one example, another example, are assembly lines, are for the most part automated, so you still have some workers, to overlook, and do some other minor task, but it does not require a number of workers that it used to.

Now, I am and I assume you are not a Luddite, I am not saying smash the machines but I am of the view that automation is inevitable for a lot of those service based jobs, you, of course, will still have workers, including some  you named, construction, and some service based that a robot generally cannot do or perhaps not yet with respect to helping customers in a store etc.,, and stores like food shops, are somewhat safe from automation to the extent of yes you can program a machine to say put patty here.. cook on this side for X minutes, but the whole wrapping, boxing etc is unlikely to be done by robots no time soon,

Though it would not be as drastic as saying 50% of my workers are fired, thus my previous timetable, speaking of 20, 30, 40 years into the future is where they are looking at, not the short term, 5, 10, 15 years. But one needs not be the "richest" to upgrade, especially if you see paying for it now, would more than pay for itself in the future and as such would be a smart business move.  So while the larger companies would do this faster, and as such the question becomes, would those smaller companies be able to absorb those workers, which would be unlikely.


"So then why bitch about America not being number 1? If no nation is number 1 then why bitch about America not being number 1? "

Because the piece states right towards the top, and I quote, did you just look at the stamp, or did you actually read the accompanying text?

"This stamp came from my seeing two people arguing that their countries are number one and anyone who disagrees were stupid. So they were arguing in circles, and since I am an America, this country is great, but I am of the view no nation is number 1, but if you do believe that, then there are certainly things within our country that should be addressed if you believe that view."

Then I went on to say some of the things I would love to see addressed in this nation.

As I said, if you wish to believe America is number 1, have at it, I said in the very text of the piece that people will have their own opinions, not everyone has to agree with your opinion but you are welcome to it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-27 06:19:08 +0000 UTC]

If God takes no active role, He would have also not made the world in the first place, because that is interacting with the world. At least when Washington was a Deist, he didn't bash other religions needlessly as much as Paine did. He just had a personal opinion that it was the way to go. Oh, and he supposedly converted to Catholicism in his deathbed, and was a supporter of the US churches like the Episcopals.

Except again, they were losing to a side that had every advantage-numbers, resources, training, supply lines. Even Alexander would have lost at those odds. The war only began to turn when the Spanish and the French-two massive Empires that could compete with Britain, joined the fray. So blaming Washington for not being able to beat what was the strongest power in the Americas at the time with a bunch of militiamen is quite the armchair general perspective. If anything, Washington lasting long enough for the French and Spanish to arrive would be a testament of how good he was. Most other military leaders would have folded or not fought at all. 

Those trends can be proven wrong, and they have been proven wrong in the past. You're assuming that A) most businesses can afford to replace service jobs with tech and B) that it would be cheaper to replace service jobs with tech. You're also assuming that these machines will work perfectly 90% of the time (which they don't) or that the companies will face no backlash or boycotts from customers and politicians for firing most of their workers. If anything, corporations keeping people off the streets by giving them jobs is part of why the government doesn't just tax them to death-they can offset welfare costs with jobs. But if more people get fired and get replaced by machines, then the government will tax these corporations until they pack up and leave the country, and get replaced by small or middle-sized businesses that will hire real people. If anything, these corporations will only use tech to shore up labor here and there. 

So? That just makes Germany even look more cunning and clever. All that matters is how its economy is affected by its actions, and its actions have gotten it closer to the #1 spot in Europe. Outside of Russia, which is a superpower, Germany would be the #1 country in Europe by any objective meaning of the word.

Actually, wealth is determined by the rich and the poor together. A nation is rich not only because the rich are wealthy, but if those below them either have A) a robust economy giving them jobs or B) a robust welfare system helping the poor have better living standards than poor in the rest of the world. And comparing the poor in the US to Barrio and Favela residents in other countries is like comparing well-fed pet animals to starving, ravenous ones in the wild. That's why China is still recognized as a Second-World country despite being the second largest economy on the planet. Its elite are filthy rich to the point of being able to compete with America's elite, but its average working men are even poorer than American hobos considering that they only earn less than $2 a day. I've seen beggars make more in an hour. 

Don't make me laugh. Again, I have no proof for anything you say. I can easily say that I'm also in a military family since my grandfather fought the Axis in WWII and now my folks support politicians who are taking the fight to ISIS. I've got family from many parts of the US, some of whom are fighting men who aren't afraid to use guns. They've even offered to let me use them one day. That doesn't prove anything in this argument. And you want to see corruption? You want to know how bad everyone else has it? Compared to what everyone else gets, from weak politicians who do nothing as Islamic rape gangs plague the country, to corrupt politicians that make deals with druglords, to ones that act like Judge Dredd and shoot any suspected criminal without Habeas Corpus, the corruption here in the States looks childish in comparison. It's like comparing Metropolis to Gotham, with the US being Metropolis and the rest of the world being Gotham. While you're busy bitching over the real-world equivalent of Lex Luthor running dirty corporate deals, the Joker's slaughtered a bus full of schoolchildren in front of their parents. 

You think getting called a nigger or getting slapped by a cop is bad? Try getting shot by a cop or a vigilante because they thought you were a drug dealer. Or, with the opposite, try living in a country where the drug gangs shoot your house up, rape your sister, and kill your family, and the cops do nothing because the local elite and government are in cahoots with the drug gangs. Or, try living in a country where the Islamic rape gangs rape your daughter, your girlfriend, or your classmates, and the cops do nothing because they don't want to look racist or offend anyone. Or, try being the wrong religion or ethnicity in one of Africa's many wars over ethnicity or religion. Or, try being a Japanese person of Korean descent in Japan, and despite living all your years in Japan, speaking the language and being raised in the culture, being forever marked as an outcast "Gaijin" for the rest of your life, with the rest of the mostly homogeneous Japanese giving you shit for it. Try being an Uighur in China and getting persecuted for being an "Islamic terrorist" by the Han Chinese. Don't make me laugh. My countrymen landed here in the US a century ago and faced persecution too. Mostly when they started dating white women and found surprising success. So yeah, when you say that what happened to you removes America from the number 1 spot, just remember than the spots for number 2 and below have it worse.

And I say you view things way too much on the theoretical side. As people use more of these machines, these machines will require maintenance, and such maintenance will only be provided by other human beings. And as far as I've seen, these humans are not IT experts, but regular service workers who operate the machines themselves from instructions given to them by their bosses, not actual IT experts who can take these machines apart and build them up. 

The very notion of number 1 means it is a competition. If not America, then something or someone else is number 1. And if your idea is that "there is no number 1", then you have no objective grounding to say that America isn't number 1, because to you, number 1 doesn't exist. It's an arbitrary concept that cannot be applied. So even if America got rid of all the racism, got an A+ on education, gave everyone jobs, free healthcare, and good homes, it still can't be number 1 because number 1 doesn't really exist. 

Every country has issues. But to say that a country isn't number 1 because of its issues and ignoring how other countries have it far worse is a hypocritical statement made to simply bitch about first-world problems while the rest of the world has real problems that Americans can't even imagine facing. It's like feminists bitching about how geeks and video games in the West are sexist because they like to show tits and ass, while women are getting stoned to death for getting raped in the Middle East. So again, America is still number 1. Mostly because the problems and issues it faces aren't even half as bad as what the rest of the world has, while its failing economy and decaying military power are nowhere near as rotten as everyone else's. You have no idea how lucky you are that you're in America, and not some other country that has worse problems than you have here. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-27 15:15:17 +0000 UTC]

Everyone practices their faith in their own way, Washington who was much more of a public persona would not have because that would not have sat well with those in power or those at time who may have held to such belief, Paine chose another route, such is the point of faith.. not everyone practices it the same way. I am an atheist so to me, I have no agreement with the deist, the Christian, the Muslim or whatever view but they are, of course, free to believe what they want where they are harming no one then have at it.

"supposedly" yet of course there is no evidence of such, so I am not one to believe the claim, but such is life. He was a supporter of freedom, including you believing whatever you wish, he spoke against organized religion, not someone not being able to believe in it.


It matters not what Alexander would have lost to, it speaks specifically to someone criticizing a Military General who was on a losing streak, someone criticizing a military general after several loses still does not lose his credibility to speak on other issues, which had absolutely nothing to do with that person. Therein lies the issues, your premise is Paine cannot speak on something which had absolutely nothing to do with Washington because he criticized Washington. If that is not your claim then there is really no real reason to harp on, his lack of credibility of a text itself you did not address but just claim he lacked credibility because of his words against Washington and Religion - - of which the piece that quote was taken from was not about Washington nor was it about religion..


Anything "can be" proven wrong, but as of yet they have not been. So if the new argument, and perhaps you argue just to argue, is to say that may not happen, then okay. But automation will not stop, we cannot stop technological advances and what that will mean for certain fields at which overall will find it the rate of production, greatly increased with automation and say that may not happen.

I actually assumed nothing with respect to that claim, I spoke specifically and even agreed with you with respect to larger businesses will be the first to move to that production because they can absorb the short-term losses and time it takes to in opening new factories and installation the automation procedures vs smaller companies that will not be able to do that right away and then questioned, would those smaller companies be able to absorb the jobs losses from the larger companies that have the funds to upgrade, and my being unsure if those smaller companies would be able to completely absorb those jobs,  thus it was left open.

You made a claim that I assumed.. and then went on to make claims of assumptions by me of things at which I never said so hmm

Your premise was that a major issue hurting their economy was their education costs, or it somehow being a detriment in some way, if Germany not only accepts their own students but other students across Europe and even America and bears the brunt of that cost then it s clear that is not the grand issue at which you are claiming.. one cannot have it both ways in that respect.

so the premise is we should not address our corrupt politicians because there are other corrupt people ? That appeared to be your argument in your comment.

I have no power or grand say over other nations, I do have a say in my own, as such I choose to focus on that which I can actually, possibly make a difference in. Saying well other countries or places are corrupt, seems the easy way out.

It is once again a weak argument, someone has it worse so why focus on that. Yes, if you have cops at which feel easy and openly use racially charged language, that should be addressed, as if you have someone who was innocent getting shot by cops, or who was not breaking the law or who were not doing anything worthy of deadly force when deadly force was used then that too, should be addressed. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I do live in a country like that.. unless you somehow think those things do not happen in America on a general view, does it matter to the rape victim that her rapists were a gang of Muslims or does she care more that a gang of people raped her?

Nowhere did I say what happened to me removes America from anywhere, since it has been stated to you many times, I am not of the view that any nation is number 1.. so for you to blatantly lie and say "when you say that what happened to you removes America from the number 1 spot, just remember than the spots for number 2 and below have it worse." when I said nothing of the sort, please sir, do not lie. You can be in disagreement but do not blatantly lie.

I already said that there will be jobs associated with that, and that  of course  people will be working, so  no where in my comment did I say automation means no jobs at all, but it does speak to, the service side, at which it would greatly affect vs the technical side which requires more knowledge, and will still, as I said from the start with respect to industrial side being the way we should move more towards, being employed because those jobs are much harder to automate.


I was using the words of those arguing back and forth, so for them one arguing their country is number 1 and one arguing my country is number 1, the stamp did what it was meant to do.. get you to look at it even if you chose to skim the text rather than read it fully to get exactly what it was attempting to convey.



Yes, every country has issues, once again did you just look at the stamp or read the actual text? The actual text already said that every country has issues, but that I, as an American, chooses to focus on that which goes in my land, that at which I have the ability either through political activism, voting etc to try and change vs focusing solely on a foreign nation at which I have no realistic control on their abilities to change the way at which they operate.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-28 02:30:29 +0000 UTC]

The fact that you even have the right to political activism shows how leagues better this land is compared to others. In other countries, you would have been shot or thrown in jail. Or, they would have harvested your organs to give to more "loyal" citizens in need of a transplant.

Yes, but the way Paine practiced his faith showed how he was hardly a tower of logic, going with assumptions instead of facts or knowledge.

And again, having a losing streak against someone who outnumbers you, outguns you, and has more resources than you can't necessarily be your fault. Washington should be commended for not losing outright. He was on a losing streak, but the fact that he didn't fold or surrender speaks leagues about how good he was as a leader. The man fought a losing war against a vastly superior foe and managed to prolong it long enough for other larger powers to get involved to bail his side out. Hating him for losing battles against the British is like hating the humans in Halo for not winning against the Covenant. Or hating the Rebels in Star Wars because they can't win all the time against the Empire. Or hating the Terrans from Starcraft for losing to the Protoss and Zerg. The fact that Washington managed to hold off long enough against a well-trained British army using nothing but militia forces is a miracle. Again, this shows how Paine is more of an armchair general with no actual knowledge of how war is waged.

For automation to continue, one must have a constant stream of technological advances and capital to further that advance. And again, not only is this advance in danger of attack by politicians and workers who would boycott or tax companies who fire workers and replace them with automation, but there is also the danger of troubleshooting automated devices. In fact, it seems that the line of cashiers would be replaced by a line of troubleshooters who are flesh and blood humans, whose job it will be to make sure the machines don't glitch out, something I've actually seen happen more than once in the stores. Which means the service workers will go from doing checkouts to re-booting machines when they go haywire. 

But the thing is, Germany's education has naught to do with economics. They have the same education as the rest of Europe, and yet they're wealthier than the rest of Europe. Which means that education has less to do with prosperity than it does with
simple knowledge.

Of course we should address corrupt politicians. Of course we should punish cops who say racially charged things. But that doesn't mean the nation isn't number 1. Again, your definition of number 1 seems to be a utopia with no flaws, which is humanly impossible. What number 1 really means in an objective term would be the least problematic or broken of the bunch. Say I have a bunch of games or movies and I rate them on a scale of 1 to 10. Even if a game or movie gets to number 1, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have problems. For example, someone can say that Empire Strikes Back is the greatest of the first 6 Star Wars films under George Lucas. It doesn't mean that the same person can't see that ESB has a few problems that need to be addressed. Even near-perfect things have bugs that need to be fixed.

In fact, the closer something is to perfection, the more glaring the bugs are. It's like me enjoying a good day of playing Skyrim, then encountering a game-breaking bug, which makes me tear my hair out in anger. Why? Because the game was so damn good that for the gameplay to be ruined by a bug really made me angry. Same with nations. America's flaws are more evident because it has more blessings than other countries and we wonder why we can't fix these bugs with the resources we possess. Yet other nations have the kind of flaws that we can't even imagine now.

If you say that no nation can be number 1, then why bitch about how America can't be number 1? Number 1 doesn't exist for you. Again, even if America got rid of all the problems you bitch about now, realistically, a new set of problems will emerge that we didn't predict. Doesn't mean that we can't say that the nation is number 1. Heck, back then when Rome was number 1 in the West, it still had a metric shit ton of problems, from religious persecution, to racism against barbarians, to civil wars and a lack of proper succession protocols.

And again, automation only counts for the top corporations like Target, Wal-Mart, or McDonalds who can afford things like this. Mom and pop stores or smaller outlets will still require flesh-and-blood workers because they can't afford automation. Again, it's like you're more on the theoretical side than on the pragmatic side.

Activism only works in countries that respect the rights of activists. Try pulling activism in China or some third-world country with authorities that have an itchy trigger finger. You'll find yourself shot if you're lucky. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-28 15:05:45 +0000 UTC]

In many countries you have a right to protest, so if that alone would be what is being judged then many countries would fall in that category, and many others would not.  Yes, I have been to China, no one ever said China is this great beacon of liberties that one should try to emulate, nor was that ever  the point of the piece of some nations do things worse, that is a given, it is about where we have shortcomings and addressing those.

I shall assume you know very little about deism, you say "the way Paine practiced his faith"  Deism has no real set doctrine of you must do this, that and this to be a deist, so your premise made little sense.

Other than the belief that God does not personally interfere in the lives of people, It has very little guidelines on you must do this or that to be a deist, so there is no way to practice the faith outside of belief in a creator, and the belief that that creator does not interfere in the lives of man. That is what faith is, what one generally believes, if they had absolute evidence of it then it would not require faith to believe it.


Heavy is the head that wears the crown, if you are the general of a military, and you keep setting up strategies how to best your opponent and then keeps losing, then yes, your strategies ought to be criticized, saying well the enemy was larger and had more arms so you cannot criticize the strategy of the General makes no sense, yet that seems to be the premise that entire paragraph is saying. I saw no grand hatred of the man, just the criticism of his methods in combat, and their own personal issues with respect to Paine originally coming to this piece of land that he also spoke of  - of which only him and Washington know what agreements they made and conditions on Paine coming here - Paine said Washington did not hold up his end of that bargain, Washington claims he did so on that point, no one can judge who was right and wrong unless we know what their agreement was.

Automation will continue, I do not know any economists who believe we will hit some grand peak, We cannot stop technology, or rather some will certainly try, but it will continue to advance, now with that comes other opportunities, as Neil Degrasse Tyson and Hawkings  often speak with respect to technological advances and exploring other planets, further than we current have the capabilities to, but it all starts somewhere, more and more advanced machinery in the factories, more and more things being produced with less human hands

- - - then you will, or nations will have the discussion that Martin Luther King spoke of in the later part of his life, and you see some European nations such as Finland, Netherlands, and some other countries are speaking of a basic annual income, now I am not expecting these things to pass, but that is what is being discussed and I am sure as service base industries start seeing more automation over the decades, may be discussed more, we shall see.

Actually, they do not, with respect to admittance, and other factors, Germany's education system is considered one of the most open and accessible in Industrial European nations. As well as when you look at investments in their system, if Germany had the same 1:1 US budget, they would be spending far more per capita on students than the US does when you factor in all of the grants, scholarships, loans etc in the US education system at the federal level - so to say that does not effect their economics, on revenue and spending is rather absurd.


Once again, you keep harping on perfection, nowhere in the piece did I ever expect perfection.

Since the premise from the start is my not believing there is this grand number 1 nation, the piece addresses how to and what to address in this society, at which does not seem to be a great priority in certain sectors of society at which those things may not affect them.

... so it is utopia to say instead being upper 20s and lower 30s in education that we should strive to be in top 10?.. no one is asking to be number 1, I said top 10 .. it is not utopia, especially when you consider reading, math, science rankings America used to, decades ago, always be in the top 5.

It is utopia to say, hey. even though we are only 5% of the world;s population, can we not be the prison capital of the world?

It is not utopia at all, no one is seeking perfection, but you keep harping on perfection, which was never claimed to be any goal and go..WELL IF IT IS NOT PERFECT THEN YOU WILL NOT BE HAPPY.


I said I am, of the view that it is not about a nation being number 1, I am an American, as such I wish to look at the issues in our society and what can be fixed.. if others wanna go RAH RAH AMERICA NUMBER 1!!! have at it, but I am not of the view, nor do I generally focus on that, I look at the issues in the society and then wonder how best to address em, will it take individual fixings in this or that area, or is it a greater undertaking at which would take congressional action.


.. your comment about "bitching" was addressed since the first comment, but if one wishes to keep asking already answered questions, then as I said this may go one for weeks, but I will always address comments when I see em.


.. the automation and rights were already addressed in your opening and thus my opening remarks.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-31 14:39:17 +0000 UTC]

The list of countries where you have the right to protest is becoming shorter and shorter. You cannot, for example, protest about Islamic radicals in Europe, despite Europe being supposedly a free society. The authorities will call you Islamophobic, while the Muslim immigrants there will threaten violence against you. America's one of the few societies where the right to protest is a guaranteed thing. Again, this shows how blind you are to current events in the world.

Actually, I know a lot about Deism, since I studied it back in history classes. But Paine attacked religion in a way that smacks of ignorance instead of logic. Instead of bitching at what the Christians actually do, ie. blindly giving to the poor, Paine attacks them on mere assumptions on what seems to be, not what actually is. While some people came to Deism because they disagreed with what the Christians DID, Paine came to the same conclusion based on what seems to be. That's not the mark of a logical man.

Again, Paine attacks Washington when all the latter had are barely-trained militia. Not only did the enemy have more numbers. Not only did they have more supplies. But they also had better training and a lot of local support, with 1/3 of the colonists being British loyalists. Again, the fact that Washington didn't outright surrender was a miracle. You, just like Paine, seem to have no idea how battles are won and fought. You need not only superiority in both men and supplies, but better training too, and the fact that Washington managed to hold on despite lacking all three shows a downright miraculous aspect to his leadership.

Automation can only be afforded by the rich, for the rich, and as it continues, so too will the glitches with these machines, which means they'll have to hire more people to look after them to make sure they don't break or get hacked by enterprising thieves. So they'll probably have an increase not only in troubleshooters for the machines, but also guards to make sure that the people in the store don't do anything stupid with the machines. And as for the smaller mom & pop stores, they can't afford automation, so they're more likely to rely on flesh and blood workers as they already do. 

Again, you have this blind faith that automation will continue, when in reality, as I have seen for myself, there's more than enough glitches in the system for it to hit a roadblock, and logically, even if the machines operate as they're supposed to, people will still need to guard them/fix them if things go wrong. Remember back in Star Wars EPI, when the bad guys had a fully automated army controlled from one ship? The ship goes down, and the army deactivates. Same here. Relying too much on automation can cause a disaster if for some reason the whole network crashes or a power outage occurs. Flesh-and-blood workers can count change and help people shop if such a thing happens, but if there's little-to-no flesh and blood workers, then the system is doomed, and the shoppers will have to go away. Machinery isn't perfect. And some people will simply see hiring a few minimum-wage chumps as cheaper than installing an expensive machine that only works half the time.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a hack. Hawkings, I can respect, but the latter does nothing but repeat what he's been taught. It's like Bill Nye the Science Guy, who is no real scientist: all he does is repeat basic-level science to kids. Tyson is merely a version of Bill Nye who repeats science facts he learned in school. He's even been caught misquoting people like George Bush II. And again, many times even proven scientists have been proven wrong. What do you think that whole "Global Cooling" craze was about, a few decades back? Now it's global warming. Oops.

You just mentioned before how Germany has the same education as the other European nations. Now it's the opposite? Make up your mind! Also, again, Germany seems to be the sole island of economic strength in Europe while others which have high education marks crumble in economics. So again, no dice. Education didn't help them, even though they should be right behind Germany in economics and not asking for handouts.

Then if you can't even have an example of a number 1 nation, you have no right in bitching about how America isn't number 1. Because to you, number 1 does not exist. Even if America dealt with all its issues, it still can't fit the pie-in-the-sky, Unicorn heaven that would be your definition of number 1. Bitching about how America is not number 1 then failing to come up with an example of a country that is number 1 is mindless sophistry at best, or hypocritical, whiny bitching at worst. At the very least other people who have said that the US is not number 1 can come up with examples, like say, China or Russia. They're dead fucking wrong, but at least they're not hypocrites.

Even if America is number 1 in education, it still won't fit your corny idea of a country that is number 1. You have no examples of a country that is number 1, remember? Then if you're judging things by education, say that "America is not number 1 at education". That's a more logical statement.

We're the prison capital of the world because we have a large population and we don't always shoot criminals in the face or send them to underground concentration camps where people disappear for good. And we don't ignore criminals like the way Europe does with immigrant Muslims. We're actually either merciful enough, or stupid enough, not to kill them all or make them disappear forever, or ignore them. Again, if these are your criteria for number 1, say so. Then provide an example of a country that does it better and make that nation number 1. Granted, you'll still be wrong, because I'm betting that a country that does better than us in the tiny, judgmental factors you use will have bigger problems than the USA has that don't involve schools or prisons, but at least that would make you more honest.

Again, if you outright say that the US is not number 1, then name a country that is, or admit that your idea of number 1 doesn't exist. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-05-31 16:54:06 +0000 UTC]

You can protest about Islamic radicals in Europe, in December 2015 over 2,000 mosques across Europe took part in massive protests against ISIL, and you have had you had millions that have protested against radical Islamism. But they have very strict laws about general protest against Islam or rather they have blasphemy laws in many European nations, such as Ireland that recently tried to, but stopped, going after Stephen Fry for simply questioning why would any belief in a God in a world with such atrocities (though Fry's remarks were not Islam or any specific religion)

If you know a lot about deism, then you should know there is no real structure of you must do this or that to be a deist for you to make the claim,  It is rather logical if you see no hand of a deity or your belief says the deity does not intervene to question those that claim that the deity personally intervenes in the lives of man. He did not do it with kid gloves, which was his right as you have those as Dawkins, Fry etc that attacks "revelation" and leave out the nice tones ..and you have others that take a more hm civil tone when discussing but either way .. have at it.

The same with Washington, it matters not what he had, if you are a general and you keep losing, people will question your leadership, Paine was hardly the only person at the time who supported the Colonies in the Revolutionary war and called into question some of the decisions that Washington made, hell even Washington if you look at his early writings called into question some of his decisions in the many early battles that he lost.

"What Christians actually do".. depends on which Christians, so he chose to attack that which remains a somewhat constant, the text itself. .saying what Christians do, will give you the slave owner, or the person down the street who feeds the poor, and clothes those with none. So he focused on the text.

Blind faith? It is not blind faith to say that technology will continue to advance, and technology advances will happen in factories, loading docks, and as well as our space ships, and other things. Automation and technological advances will continue, I do not know much of anyone who has studied this and sees as  the technology becomes more available, and thus more affordable that you will see it take more a hole on smaller operations, assuming the larger ones already have the funds necessary to install this - - now that means, of course, other jobs may be created from that - - similar to a different subject but same thing, green technology in America now employees more than the oil companies, so you simply have to train your workforce to adjust to the new jobs, where the old jobs will not be as abundant. This is not, in my view, a terrible thing for a society to advance, as Heraclitus said, "The only thing that is constant is change" and a society that is to advance will have to continuous adjust and change to the new realities.

It is not a matter of relying upon "too much" it is a matter of a society that will adjust to the new technology of a time, people will always adjust and adapt, we have been doing it for thousands of years, this would be just another adaption in human progress and technological advances.

I would disagree on NDT but that is your opinion, it did not change the fact of what they both spoke of it. It is climate change, so the world will go through cycles of heating and cooling, the point of it is how fast it is heating and how much carbon humans are injecting into the atmosphere which I am not expecting to change any time soon, regardless of who the US president is.

Where did I say it is the "opposite"? Please do not lie, sir, I said that Germany like the other European nations offers universal education to its citizens, then I spoke of something at which Germany does that is a bit different than the other European nations .. saying they do something a bit differently with in one aspect, with respect to accepting international students free of charge is not the "opposite" of the comparison when the bulk of it, is relatively the same with respect to providing education from early childhood education to university at their public institutions to their citizens.

"you have no right"... so in America, I have no right to speak of the issues at which I wish America would address, in America?.. interesting.

Actually, it is not "my idea" since I said in the very text of the stamp that I am not into the international dick measuring contests, and the point of the stamp between two people arguing that their country is number 1 and my only caring of this country addressing some issues within our society.

That would make sense is countries that are 3-4x larger than ours did not have smaller populations, but much of our population, some 50% of the federal prisons and around 25% of our state prisons are drug offenses, a large percentage are nonviolent drug offenders. Will America fix its failing war on drugs.. we shall see, at least with its failing war on alcohol it wised up much quicker.


It is not my idea of number 1, my question was to the person saying it is, it did what it was supposed to do was get your attention.. then you chose not look at the stamp and disregard all of the text that was with it when I said I do not care if someone says I am number 1.. or another person says they are number 1.. everyone will have their own opinion on that then I spoke of things I would like us to fix in our society but you keep harping on the stamp, rather than the text ..

so I guess this will be going on for weeks.. or perhaps months but time will tell. Since the text already said in the very piece below the stamp, which you either chose not to read, or read and still wanted to feel like a victim , said that whether or not someone wants to go rah rah America number 1 is their business, that I am more focus not on the international dick measuring contest but address things at which we have the ability to address and leave the others to continue the international dick measuring contest

..as always, I will reply when I see it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-05-31 22:46:33 +0000 UTC]

There you go. Only Muslims can protest against other Muslims, or else, it's a hate crime. Even America beats Europe when it comes to free speech. You can go ahead and tell Trump that he's not your president and he doesn't give two shits. 

Again, Paine's hatred of religion isn't from what it is or what it does, but what it seems to be to him. That may be how he wants to run things, but it shows that he's a man who runs on assumptions instead of others who rejected different faiths because said faiths tried to do something they disagreed with, like the way one might disagree with Islam because they like to eat pork and get shitfaced after getting drunk every weekend.

Again, this is out of context. The fact that Washington didn't surrender when all he was given was militiamen to fight the strongest army in the Americas at the time was a miracle in itself. It's like getting angry at a guy whom you gave a butter knife five minutes ago when he hasn't chopped down a tree with said knife yet. Washington was facing an enemy that outnumbered him, outgunned him, had more supplies, and had better training than his bare-bones militiamen. And the fact that the man didn't get completely destroyed was a miracle in itself. The Celts and Bretons don't blame Boudicca for losing to the Romans-she's still remembered as a fierce warrior and a hero of her people, even though she only scored a few surprise victories before getting put down like a rabid dog. In the Halo series, nobody gives flack to the human captains and admirals despite them repeatedly losing; that's because the Covenant was a faction that outnumbered human armies and had better tech than humanity. Paine was a fool to blame Washington for not winning against the British when survival was the best they could hope for, until the French and the Spanish decided to join in. That's like shitting on Glass Joe for not winning even if he survived for more than ten minutes against Clubber Lang.

It is blind faith, because it's ignoring the shits that technology have along the way. You're ignoring the fact that technology fails half the time. The laptop I'm using right now crashes on a semi-regular basis. Ipads and Iphones have batteries that fail. Video game consoles and PCs either go obsolete or breaks down. The same could be said of these machines that people seek to replace workers with. Also, a business that goes full automation loses the human touch, which would make the customers seek out other stores that have live people to interact with in case the self check-out machine breaks down, which they often do. Machines are, by definition, obsolete. As soon as they come out of the factory, the asshole that made them is already thinking up of better designs to sell. And he didn't necessarily account for all the bugs. Selling the machine is what's important, after all. Not the actual service that the machine provides.

And it seems that mankind's adaptation to machines is that the more they rely on machines, the more fucked they are when these machines go down. Back then, few people dreamed of having internet access. Now, if someone can't go to the internet even outside the house, they go batshit, because they need to be able to speak to their friends on a constant schedule on Facebook or Twitter and five minutes without it would drive them mad. Mankind adapts to new machines, but as machines fail, mankind finds that they have just as much chores as they had when they began. The only difference is the nature of the chores, which always seem to boil down to getting your hands dirty. 

Tyson's been proven to be a hack. But even scientists go wrong on what phase of the earth it is, whether it be cooling or warming. And if what you say is right, global warming would not be blamed on mankind. People can just as easily theorize that smoke from burning coal can either cool down the planet by blocking out the sun or warm the planet by damaging the ozone layer. NDT having a statement isn't an absolute proof.

And how does that one aspect suddenly make them more prosperous? Does it suddenly create revenue or keep them from following the other European countries to debt? Don't make me laugh. It's a tiny difference that has little to do with their economics. 

Of course. Because you bitch about how America is not number 1, but then can't find an example of a country that is number 1. So yes, from my point of view, you have no right to say that America is not number 1 when you can't even find a country that would qualify as number 1. At least the other guys who say that either China or Russia is number 1 are basing their arguments on an objective platform. They're wrong, but at least they're honest, instead of using the whole "America is not number 1" thing to bitch about a country but then not find another country that is better. 

For my two cents, India can perhaps become number 1 in the future. China and Russia have dwindling populations, which will mean less workers and consumers, which means less GDP, which means less power, because money is power. India, on the other hand, not only has industrial labor, but nukes and a huge population base that can serve as a core of consumers and producers, which can increase its GDP. If America keeps going the way it's going, and China and Russia follow suit, they will all soon find themselves behind India, economically, and perhaps, militarily, since a strong military is based on a strong economy.

The very idea of a number 1 nation IS a dick measuring context. So you outright said that America's dick isn't the longest, but couldn't provide as to why that is. Whose dick is bigger than Uncle Sam? If you can't come up with an answer, then it looks like Uncle Sam does have the biggest member in the room and would qualify to be number 1 after all, despite your whining and moping.

Count yourself lucky that you're not in the Philippines, where drug offenders are shot, or China/Mexico, where drug gangs run around freely. America's no paradise, but it handles the drug question better than other countries do. The only one I see doing better is Portugal, but America kicks their ass on other factors, so Portugal can't be number 1 just because it handles the drug question better. Nor can America not be number 1 because it has a prison and drug problem. That just shows that they're not willing to gun down every drug offender, nor are they willing to just let drug gangs go free. And for the prison thing, other countries use capital punishment or hidden prisons liberally, while others let criminals go free and ignored. America actually has standards. It's often those who choose to capture enemies first and kill later that have larger prisons.

Then you should have chosen your words better. "Problems with America" sounds more like it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-06-01 01:04:25 +0000 UTC]

Where did I say "Only Muslims? I specifically said and you have had millions protested against radical Islamism, purposely separating from the time those Muslims protested.  That day where over 2000 mosques took part, it was already a massive planned protest, and the mosques made an effort to say they would show their support and participate in, of course, much of the Western news did not show that aspect of it.. but I have come to expect that sadly.

If you see something as illogical, then you would not sing its praises. To many deists, organized religion they saw as such, Paine was just more hmm forward in his speaking against it but he was far from the only one at the time at which speaking against organized religion.  He is a man who read the text, and saw no evidence for the claims of "Revelation"... and spoke of such.

It is not out of context, I do not understand the continuously need to to make excuses for something even Washington saw the error of. As a military General, you will have wins and losses, Washington was not shy in his diaries about admitting where he made wrongful calculations, and made mistakes with respect to the best way to post, and mount his troops on this or that battlefield, but like a man, he learned from those mistakes, and after  a series of losses started to get some wins.. unsure why the constant making of excuses for his wrongful tactics early on in the war.

It is not blind faith since you have already been told I am not speaking of in 10 or 20 years.. I specifically on around three or four separate occasions told you the time frame I am referencing as Hawkings and Tyson spoke of is more 30, 40, 50 years out, where certainly the technology then if it keeps up with the pace of  technological advances over the last few decades will certainly be far more advanced in 2050, 2060 and 2070 than we have in say 2000, 2010 and 2020.. -  -of course I do not know if I will be alive to see it at that time, but I am sure there will be more advances, minor at first in the short term, 10 - 20 years but that is not the time frame I am referring.

unless you are of the view that the technology of 2050, 2060 and 2070 will be no greater difference than it is now.. which is an interesting view, not one I agree with but such is life.

There is a plus and downside to all technological advances, the quick hmm internet driven society has its positives and negatives.. but for the market, it will also have positive and negative effects on labor and capital as it is interjected over the 30 ..40 ..50 year period and then society will have to adapt along the way , as I am sure it will.

So basically you did not read the text of the stamp before commenting and now you have an issue that because you chose to not read the text and stuck on RAH RAH number 1 that it is someone else's fault hmm interesting.

If you had read the text of the piece before commenting that would have, I imagined saved you a great deal of time, but here we are nonetheless.


That is fine for India, China... Russia, etc.. but as the text of the piece states, I am more so focused on addressing certain social, economic, educational issues in our society rather than the continuous dick swinging contest which as a standalone measures does absolutely nothing.



Nope, I should not have chosen my words better, you perhaps should learn to read the text (Artist Comments) of something rather than just the stamp -  there is a reason people write down there, because not everything can be covered in a stamp..

That is like you seeing the cover of a book and you disagree with the cover of the book so much that you go on a  long rant about how the cover is wrong ...  even though that was covered within the book had you bothered to look pass the cover of a thing.

As always, I will reply back when I see your comment, and we shall see how long this will drag out since I had not expected it to carry on for now what is over a week... we shall see if it goes on for multiple weeks or months.. time will tell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-06-05 07:26:43 +0000 UTC]

And how did that protest help those who died in London from the recent attacks? Do these "moderate Muslims" life a finger against their more radical cousins? Outside of Russia's Syrian puppets, it doesn't seem like they actually have any effect. European governments are doing nothing as one attack after another hits them. Nothing but prayers and hashtags and promises. Yes, America's cops sometimes kill innocents. Yes, they can be a bit trigger-happy at times. But I'd rather have nations be accused of Islamophobia than have them be such weaklings that they offer nothing but flowers and warm wishes to victims of radical Islam. At least America is more capable of defending herself than that. In fact, if it were me, I'd take a page from Rodrigo Duterte's playbook and apply his approach to drug dealers on Islamic radicals. 24/7 reconnaissance on Muslim communities, and if someone from there so much as lifts a finger to help ISIS, they're dead. 

But their reasons for flagging someone or something as illogical differs. Some actually have reasons, like for example, people who hate the Church's open-door policy for the poor that some of the poor abuse so they don't have to work a day in their lives. But Paine's approach is tackling things based on what seems to be, not what actually is. So that's why he's no authority in this regard. 

It is out of context, because any imbecile who bothers to study military tactics and strategy will know that no matter how good a general you have, you will lose if the other side has more supplies, numbers, and training than you do. Other generals might have completely folded and surrendered. The fact that Washington continued to fight despite losses on nearly all fronts shows a miraculous determination to hang on and fight despite overwhelming odds. As I said before, even other generals like Caesar and Alexander, had they been put in the same spot, would also be hard-pressed to fight and would consider survival to be a blessing. 

Your view, along with Paine's, tackle battles and wars as if they were chess. As if both sides always have the same amount of men and training, as well as tactics. That barely mirrors real life. So yes, I can and will disparage both of you and call you out as having no sense of realism or context when it comes to war. Because unlike you, I've studied war for over a decade. I've studied centuries' worth of warfare, from Ancient Rome to the modern day. And to call Washington a loser despite him being able to survive assaults from the strongest army in the Americas at the time reveals your short-sightedness, lack of context, and failure to understand how war works. This isn't a video game or a boxing match where only the top contestants matter.

Warfare takes into account arms, supplies, numbers, and training. And the side that dominates that usually wins. The fact that the British didn't crush Washington and his forces outright despite having superiority in these categories shows how old George actually is above the rank and file generals of his time. Had the positions been reversed, his enemies would not have lasted long. Their positions DID reverse when the French and the Spanish arrived to reinforce the US. And unlike Washington, who held on for years despite overwhelming odds, the British immediately surrendered after a few lost battles against Franco-Spanish forces. Which goes to show that while Washington had staying power, his enemies did not. The moment the odds turned against them, they turned tail and ran. Washington kept fighting despite having the odds against him for years, but his enemies didn't last as long when the tables were turned.

So it still is blind faith. Because we have no knowledge of what will happen in 30-50 years. Maybe we can have a nuclear apocalypse. Maybe technology will stagnate due to a plague caused by a post-antibiotic world. Maybe more money will be put onto other forms of technology that would help people create their own wealth and livestock that doesn't require needing corporations or manufacturing. Maybe we'll invent replicators that would drive 90% of the corporations out of a customer. So yeah, the only concrete predictions we can make are for the immediate future, like say, 10-20 years. And even then, they might not be as concrete as we might consider them.

I did. But what I am saying is that your initial premise is wrong. Talking about how a country isn't number 1 naturally prompts the question "who is"? I actually gave an idea of a country that can beat America and be number 1 in the future-India. Russia and China have spent populations and don't have a replacement rate that will last for the next few decades. In a few decades, they will be has-beens in the political field, more like North Korea due to having Nukes. The US can keep its power depending on how it handles its matters, or it might sink into the proverbial ocean if the wrong people come to power. Some Latino countries might develop potential, however unlikely. Other Asian countries might also be sleeping giants waiting to awaken as well, especially if high-population countries like Vietnam and the Philippines develop their economic structures. But India, with its high population rate, developing economy, and nuclear capability is shaping up to be the real competitor with the US as number 1. See? It isn't that hard to come up with an idea of a country that can be number 1 if the US is not.

But instead, you continue to harp on subjects that are first-world problems. Nothing close to the brutal sexism of the Middle East, the crime problems in many parts of Asia and Latin America, the ethnic and religious wars in Africa, or the Islamic terrorism that runs rampant in Europe. If you use America's first-world problems as a reason to say it's not number 1, then the problems of the other countries knock the US back into the number 1 spot, because again, no matter how harsh the US has it, other countries have it worse. You think the US economy is fucked? Try China's, which, contrary to the government's statements, is in freefall. Try Europe's, which is collapsing unto itself. 

Again, this just goes to show how people like you, trapped in your first-world surroundings, have NO FUCKING IDEA what real world problems are. Oh, a cop hated you because you were black? That's cute. Try having cops who shoot you on the slightest suspicion of criminal activity. Or better yet, try cops who don't care when drug gangs rape and kill your family. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-06-05 13:47:16 +0000 UTC]

 As always I will reply when I see the comment.. it is now over 2 weeks so I guess this will go on for quite a while .. simply going in circles until eventually we will agree to disagree OR it just goes on and on for months in circles... such is life

How did our massive protests help those killed those in Fort Hood, protests alone will not stop an ideology that is built on violence as Wahhabism has been for centuries. If you follow the news, which since you mentioned the "recent attacks" those moderate Muslims as you put in quotes had reported Salman Adebi to the authorities for his radical views five years ago, as has been reported by Th guardian, NY times, Metro, telegraph, business insider and other news outlets... so if they report him to the authorities, it hardly seem their fault that the authorities did not keep an eye on him and he was one who did the Manchester attacks.

"24/7 reconnaissance on Muslim communities,"
Yes, the NYPD tried that with several mosques... funny thing about that, They are, in that case, American citizens as such the courts found the government or an arm of the government at which cops are.. simply spying on em because they are Muslim violated their constitutional rights.. unless, and I am not saying you are but some certainly are, we say because are a Muslim you therefore give up your constitutional rights.. which would be of course a direct violation of the first amendment but.. yeah..

So to answer your question, which I assume when you said "life a finger" that meant lift a finger, yes they do, they had reported the guy five years ago to the cops, pass that there is little a regular civilian can do beside report someone to the authorities that they believe is a threat to others.. but I am sure you will still find some way to make it the fault of theirs, which I have come to expect in the West of.. no, they should have put on a cape and followed him a round and stopped him before it happened.

Though, with respect to Wahhabism, which is the radical strain of Islam of ISIL, Al Qaeda etc.. the West must realize their hmm actions which foster this, by us continuously arming the largest, terrorist funding nation on earth, that being Saudi Arabia, but I do not see the West discontinuing this decades-old practice anytime soon.

It is religion, if you are expecting 100% belief on every single detail then you will never get that, regardless of the belief structure, be it theism or deism, you will not find 100% agreement on every detail, so yes,  you will find differing views between people who profess the same belief system.

Actually, his approach was to look at the text, that is the one thing, with few differences that remain constant between the particular faiths of that belief structure, which it is a far more constant than deconstructing the thousands of sects of a belief.

It is not out of context, I personally do not see why you are arguing against things even Washington in his diary spoke of, and that was his early failings, Paine spoke of those, as Washington and many others did yet your premise is.. his speaking of such makes his other statement somehow invalid which in of itself makes no sense.

Actually neither my view, nor Paine spoke anything of such, but you can look at a military strategy at which whose executions failed to meet its plaining,.. saying your enemy is larger so you cannot criticize failures in certain battles, once again makes no sense yet that seems to be the point you are continuously making.

Who called him, in general a loser? Seems you are attempting to set up a red herring because Paine did not state such and neither did I. Saying he lost battles here and there, are facts, are we now to argue against facts?


It is not Blind faith unless once again you somehow believe the technology that is around now will remain this way for decades and we will never have any other technological advances..  which if that is the argument you are making, seems a weak argument. Technology will advance, computers, phones, our cars, our factory machinery, etc will advance in the next 20..30, 40.. 50 years.. to deny such is the real faith-based view.

Short term planning is the easy part, we relatively know market stability and that is why our budgets are planned to general ten year spans, but planning an economy for the future, will require looking at the advancing being made to technology and utilizing these advancements and factoring them into your economic predictions given where you currently are, and will you plan to be - not only in 10, 20 years but beyond that.


You say you did, if you did, and I admit finding that hard to believe, then it would have made little sense for your original comment and thus this ongoing exchange,  Since I already said, literally, in the text that the stamp words are from someone else who was debating  another and that my general focus is not the national dick swinging contest but to look at what can we address. No one said the US does not do this better, or that nation does not do that better, the issue is addressing that at which we do not do great in.. not because this or that nation does it better but because it is better for the country, but as Churchill said
"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." Winston Churchill

We appear to still be on the trying everything else phase.. my question, and the entire point of the piece is how to address those issues in this country

It is not simply a "first world" problem to address poverty, to address your people having access to a proper education, basic medical care and perhaps basic medical care that would not bankrupt them - these are global problems at which when you have a world where 8 people own as much wealth as 3.5 billion people, these are questions that will come up .. particularly in third world nations that are looking to advance, but first must address social, economic, educational issues.


Oh yes, tell me about people like me.. I await to hear more about what you know of my story, and my having no clue of things .. but the funny things, as always, it is either you believe what I believe or you are wrong.. which seems your shtick.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-06-05 22:25:02 +0000 UTC]

How? Because they did nothing, that's how. Again, the lack of action against Muslim radicals thanks to fears of being called "Islamophobic" is what causes these things. At a time when we should be sharpening our blades and preparing to strike, we're instead worrying over people being Islamophobic. Newsflash: The average American doesn't care about the average Muslim. They only want those radicals silenced for good. And the fact that the law did nothing when moderate Muslims reported these attackers shows how afraid of being portrayed as Islamophobes the law was. Their own kind told the law that they were radicals, and yet the law did nothing. Why is that? Oh, that's right, because action against Muslims, no matter how justified, even when other Muslims call them terrorist wannabes, is "Islamophobic".

No, it doesn't violate constitutional rights. If we had Catholic terrorists running around killing people, then I'd feel safer if cops were around my Church in case these idiots acted up. No other religion bitches about this as a violation of constitutional rights outside of Muslims and their patsies in the media and in academia. The cops serve a double purpose-to observe the communities for radical behavior, and to protect the rest of the communities in case someone turned out to be a radical. Again, this whole nonsense of violating people's rights is nowhere near actual violation of people's rights. In fact, it's protecting their rights. Observation can clear most Muslims who aren't terrorists of suspicion, and the cops can act if someone did perform terrorists acts.

And the main reason the cops did nothing was because they feared being labeled Islamophobic. If they didn't have that fear, they'd have acted a long time ago. This is similar to those cases of Muslim rape gangs where cops don't act against the suspects out of fear of being called racist bigots. 

Neither the left nor the right wants to do anything about Wahhabism. Although Trump seems to have been the odd one out, as he called on Muslim countries to actually do something about it. Barring the bombing or extermination of Wahhabist centers, this is the most anyone can do. Just as moderate Muslims can only warn people about radicals, as you said.

And that's why I find Paine's Deism to be less logical. Other people actually have a reason to hate of Catholicism. Paine only goes by what seems to be. Which makes him no authority to speak on things like this. The man may have had a few salient points, but his thoughts on religion and warfare show how blind he is to things of such natures. Instead of hating the Church for actual, dogmatic reasons, Paine hates them on what seems to be their beliefs, not what actually is. 

Again, it is out of context. People like you just don't understand the subtleties of warfare, no matter how many times it is explained for you. You'd be the kind to lose a war before the first shot is even fired. Washington holding out against an enemy with superior numbers, supplies, and training and not completely folding despite years of fighting is a virtue, not a flaw. And his enemies folded the moment the tides turned on them thanks to Spanish and French troops. Which means he had more fighting spirit and strength than his enemies had. 

Not only is the enemy larger, but they had more supplies and better training. Most generals would lose automatically at those odds, while Washington didn't. In fact, his British enemies did lose at those odds when the Spanish and French showed up to tip the war in the Colonies' favor. Which means that while Washington's forces held the enemy off despite having less manpower, supplies, and training, the Brits ran away after losing a few battles to Spanish and French forces, which shows how Washington was far better than his English adversaries. This is why you and Paine are blind, but, apparently, forcing you to see just won't work.

It is blind faith, because again, you're assuming that technology will only travel one path. You people making such far-reaching predictions for decades not even close enough to estimate shows how blind you are. As I said before, we may have vastly different outcomes. We may have a nuclear apocalypse. We might wind up developing replicators. We already are close enough with 3D printing being developed, which is the first stage of replication. Who's to say that someone won't improve that add it with private bio-farms to render corporations and manufacturing obsolete? 

Short term planning is all we can do. Long-term planning can be complicated by a number of factors, the least of which are unforseen inventions or political strife. That's why your faith is blind. You're not even coming close to any logical sense of how to estimate the future.

And how does any of that knock the US off the #1 spot? I actually gave you a way to show how another country can be better than the US in a couple of decades-which would be the logical way of proving how the US is not #1. The #1 spot is obviously a matter of competition. If not the US, then someone else. Again, what I was saying is that YOUR WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE US NOT BEING #1 IS FLAWED. No matter what reasons you bring, you're not grounding it in an objective, competitive environment. You're just using it for sophistry and whining. That's why your concept, your whole premise, your whole argument, fails. 

It is when you're using these problems to say that the US isn't #1, when other countries have worse problems than these. Which means that your argument FAILS when other countries have worse problems than the US does.

I say what I say based on what I observe from people like you. And I say that you're stuck in the first world, having no real inkling of what real national problems are like. Perhaps if someone throws you into a third-world country and you get thrown in front of actual third-world problems will you understand how lucky Americans are, no matter their problems.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-06-06 00:05:54 +0000 UTC]

As always, I will address any comments when I seem em and am home for a few a little while.. we shall see how long this goes.. perhaps months since it has already been weeks..

What did you want them to do? They reported someone that they believed was a threat to others, that was years ago, and from reports he was reported several times years ago and either nothing was done or they did not follow up since it does not seem other than file a report the authorities did much .. and so the person did a terrorist attack.. what more did you expect those Muslims to do outside of reporting to the authorities?

What more do you expect, with respect to the countries in recent attacks that the West is choosing to cover (not the attacks in the Middle East and Africa where pretty much all of the victims in those recent attacks are Muslims but the West does not cover those because it does not fit the narrative)

So, those civilians did what they were supposed to do, they reported someone they thought were a threat, besides that I am unsure what else you think they should have done if reporting them to the authorities did not work... follow him around all day?..

It does violate constitutional rights if the only reason you are spying on someone, as an arm of the government, is just because they are Muslim. The NYPD  themselves in court said they have no serious  reports of any radicalism coming from those mosques, that the only reason they sent officers in the mosque undercover, for many months and in one case years was because they were Muslim... the courts, two of em found that to be a violation of their rights.

If you had Catholic terrorists, the cops would not still be able to say because you are Catholic we can spy on you .. it is not about "you feeling safer"... in fact the very point of your saying that makes me think of that Franklin quote
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

that somehow violating someone else' rights to make you feel safer is exactly what he was referring to.


You say the "main reason" yet do you have evidence that is the reason? you made a claim that the "main reason" they did not do anything is because they did not want to be labeled Islamophobic, do you have evidence for this? You made a direct claim, do you have evidence for this claim?

I think it is little left or right and more.. we just want the money ..I think if you ask most liberals and most conservatives should we be sending hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, which has been linked to some of the most violent terrorist groups around the world they would say no.. but will the government give up one of, if I am not mistaken their biggest arms buyer.. hmm

Not really an "odd one out" Bush said the same thing, as did Obama that those nations must take a more active role in it. now Trump did do something the other two did not and bar people from those countries, at which courts overruled it and it may make its way to the Supreme Court and we shall see what they say.

People like me just do not understand. shakes head,  typical...

Tell how Paine referencing specific losses and criticizing battle strategies is out of context when.. Washington in his diaries also did the same.? It is not out of context to criticize a military general and battle strategies, your enemy being larger, which was already factored in does not change the fact that you planned for a specific battle and it did not turn out that way and then to look and critique why it failed, what went wrong etc..

Saying they had superior numbers, so it is out of context to criticize a loss in a particular battle is what really makes no sense but that is your argument. No one, not Paine, nor I said Washington did not eventually get wins, but that does not mean one cannot critique losses.


Show me where I said "technology will only travel one path"... one path as far as what? .. Are you saying that in 20, 30, 40 years technology will not advance in many respects pass what they currently are? no one has said each and every thing will be far and beyond every conceivable notion of where it could be, but given we are already seeing what factories and manufacturers are implementing and plan to implement by 2030, planing for a future economy, also means expecting the technology and technological uses to expand and how best to switch your job market to adapt for that when it happens.

Short term planning is what we are doing, yet long term planning is what we, government, men like Elon Musk and people in his field, Microsoft and people in that field, and of course NASA which are planning far into the future 2030s and 2040s on interplanetary exploration. If one is afraid of complicated factors, then preparing a economy, business etc for the future may not be for them

Since it is not "my concept" which further tells me you did not read the artist comments as you claim you did.


I am of the view, as you have been told literally over a dozen times, that the dick swinging contests I leave that for others, I am wondering how to address the issues we have, I leave it for the other WE ARE NUMBER 1!!!!!!! crowd if that is all they wish to yell, and I focus on how best to meet and address the issues we have.


What you observe from "people like me" but you do not know me, and "people like me" is very vague since other than a few posts online, you know very little about me but that is the problem with assumptions as they say.. people tend to make an ass of themselves but such is life.

I have been to several third world countries, and have family in many of em, but it seems, and I could be wrong, but your ending seems to say that if I, as an American, ask that we address some of the issues in America, that shows one is stuck in the first world. Which makes absolutely no sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-06-06 13:29:16 +0000 UTC]

The problem isn't with the moderates-it's with the authorities who feared getting branded Islamophobes by acting out against Muslims. They're so paralyzed with the thought of being called Islamophobes that when some Muslims start talking about how others should be put in surveillance, the cops are too scared to do it. It's the flaw of the system itself, which seems to evade you.

Actually, we do cover those attacks in Africa and the Middle East. And they're usually fueled by Islam. Boko Haram killing those who are "westernized". Muslims who hurt other Muslims for not being Muslim enough. Girls who get stoned to death for being raped. They are widely reported by us conservatives, and liberals tend to be the ones to keep such stories from being mentioned.

Again, I'm not blaming the civilians. God bless them for their proactive approach. I'm blaming THE SYSTEM which failed to act because they were afraid of being called Islamophobic.

Actually, the NYPD labeled several mosques as terror groups and spied on them for that purpose. The opposite of what you said is true-the cops found, or at least thought they found, evidence of radicalism in the mosques, and so began spying on them.

It's quite cute that you brought up that quote. The same idiots who said that stuff about how giving up liberty for security means that you don't deserve either liberty or security are the same idiots who passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which deflowered many liberties in the name of security. Looks like many of the Founding Fathers saw how that quote loses gravitas when the realities of power and danger dawn upon them.  

Evidence for my claim is everywhere. All you need to do is look. 
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/uk-…
Cops are more concerned with not offending Muslims than actually protecting the masses from Islamic terrorism. No wonder they ignored moderate Muslims warning of Jihadists.

Every rich nation uses Islamic countries as patsies even though they're related to terrorism. America has the Saudis, China has the Pakistanis, Russia has Iran. All three are Islamic countries with radical leanings and ties to terrorists. So that's not a metric to say that a country isn't number 1, since all the top countries in the world at the time makes deals with countries that flirt with radical Islam. 

It wasn't just superior numbers that the British had-you continually ignore the fact that I brought up-the British had superior numbers, SUPPLIES, and TRAINING. When your enemy has better trained soldiers and secure supply lines, while yours aren't so well trained or supplied, things tend to go wrong for your army. Your army is less disciplined, less efficient. They might do something wrong in the middle of battle. They're not fighting at 100% capacity. Which means your battle plans are not going to go as planned. And the fact is, Washington's army have less supplies means less food, clothing, and ammo, while the enemy can gorge themselves fat and shoot at them all day. Your ignorance of other factors shows your willing desire to ignore how armies not only get closer to victory based on size-training and supplies matter a lot as well.

And again, despite fighting a losing battle for years, Washington and his folks endured. The moment the tables turned on the British, they immediately reached for a compromise. If Washington was a shit general, then his enemies are even shittier for quitting faster than he did when the tide of war turned against them. Which means that Paine's insults towards him are nonsense, when the war showed how much better a general Washington was compared to his enemies.

Again, long-term planning is not concrete. You acting like it is reveals your short-mindedness. The people who lived 50 years before us thought that the year 2000 would bring very different things compared to what we have now. They thought that large-scale space travel and flying cars would be possible by now. They thought that global unity would have already been secured, which would allow us to focus on more scientific endeavors a la Star Trek. Well, they're not. Instead, we're still struggling with renewable energy, and nations are still engaging in a dick-measuring contest on military and economics. So trying to say that your predictions for the next 50 years is concrete is rather.......short-sighted and naive.

And once again, my statement is that your premise of the US not being number 1 is wrong. I gave you certain scenarios where other countries like Vietnam, Philippines, India and other nations can eventually surpass the US in the number 1 category on an objective plane. Instead, you use the whole "THE US IS NOT NUMBER ONE" as a reason to bitch and whine about problems that other countries have worse versions of, which automatically shoots down your argument when Americans are better off than other folks around the world.

I'm not against addressing America's problems. But bitching about how it's not number 1 because it has problems is a laughable concept considering other countries have shitloads of problems that not even Americans could dream of having back home. Again, that's a pathetic display of emotion-mongering while ignoring the fact that other nations have problems worse than the ones that you use to say that America isn't number one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-06-06 15:37:02 +0000 UTC]

You make a claim that they feared being branded as "Islamophobes" yet you can offer no evidence as to that being why they did not do anything. That is a very specific claim at which your comment, when asked for direct evidence of that is why those particular cops did not do anything offered up zero evidence for those specific cops.

That link does not say they did not investigate someone reporting possible extremists because they feared being called Islamophobes, you said it would prove your claim, it did not.

It said they had increased cases of Islamophobic or Muslim targeted attacks after the terrorist attacks, which in of itself does not speak to their failure in investigating someone who has reported 5 years ago in one attack and 2 years ago in the Manchester attack.

What did we just learn in the last few days of the Manchester attacks, once again, he had been reported to the authorities several times by Muslims and once again they went nowhere. They make a report and then the excuse after is, the civilians offered no evidence or they just do not give an excuse other than we made a report ... so cops must do their jobs if someone is reported, investigate em, sometimes there is nothing to em, and sometimes there is.

We cannot just keep saying oh they do not want to be branded as Islamaphobes, without offering up evidence as that being the reason that they failed to do their job.

Yes, BBC, Al Jazeera America, RT America, The Intercept and some others do cover them, but as a whole, those stories are few and far between on televised and print journalism in America, even though it happens far more frequent there than here.


In courts, they were spying on over a half-dozen mosques, of the ones that it came out they were spying on, they said in court that they were trying to being proactive, citing no credible claims that they had been given reports of the mosques promoting radical Islam, at which the courts found that the City of New York and the NYPD had violated their rights because the government could not make a clear case as to the reasons of spying on those mosques

Now, if you get a credible tip for an individual, and you look after that individual, perhaps look at his mosque and see what they are saying that is one thing, they could not make the cases for those mosques they were spying on and in several cases had undercover cops in.

Yes, that quote speaks to your claim of you will feel safer.. if we basically violated the rights of others. It is not about your safety if you say it is okay to violate other's rights as American citizens just because you would feel safer... you cannot right a wrong by doing a wrong. That is to say, you cannot cast the suspicion on all Muslims, and thus violate their rights just because a small number of the 1.6+ billion in the  faith have committed terrorist acts,

.. Franklin died almost a decade before those acts were put in place, so you say "the same people" when I referenced only one man in that quote, a man who had died almost a decade before those acts, ad who would have had no say in those acts since he was neither a member of Congress nor a President. Who before his deaths argued against very restrictive laws at which he felt impeded on individual liberties.

We have our hand in much of that sadly, have you read the 1956 Bruce-Lovett report? or saw the 2007 interview with General Wesley Clark?. in the 1956 Bruce Lovette report, googling that will come up with a great piece by RFK Jr "Why the Arabas Don't want us in Syria" .. in 1956 Congress put out a report and found though the CIA had been foundedin 1948 .. by 1949 they were already meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern nations, Syria .. trying to topple leaders, trying to install leaders more favorale to us AT TIMES solely for business interests.. I use that because you mentioned Iran and Iran was also cited in those reports, I am sure you are aware of the US and UK toppling Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953... which led to the Iran we have now, we installed the Shah.. and aftr some time the people overthew him and then .. religious rule. Though what was Mohammad Mosaddegh great crime? He thought Iranian oil should benefit not American and UK companies, but the Iranian people, he had planned to nationalize the oil, to provide schools, hospitals, etc and was a secular Muslim.. yet the US would lose billions a year in oil deals so .. we topppled him.

Now, we will never know what would have happened if we had not  toppled a democratically electd leader, who was a secular guy and quite popular with the people.. and how different Iran would be today .. but the US and the West sadly have our hands for nearly 70 years now in a great deal of the issues in some Middle Easter countries, including, as you say, backing this or that group who funds terrorists and then act surprises that the issue has not gone awa or been greatly diminished

It is not ignoring the fact, in fact I already said that previously, that does not change the fact that a General, knowing all of this already, in specific battles failed in those battles. Are you seriously saying that we can never criticize the losses of certain battles because the enemy may be better suited?.. That seems a terrible argument but it is the argument you are going with.

No one said he was a "shit general" you are once again setting up a premise never stated in order to bolster a weak argument, Paine criticized, as Washington himself if you read his diaries, criticized the losses in specific battles. That is all, yet all of this is for one quote from Paine.. and your insistence that that quote cannot be listened to because he criticized Washington. once again a weak claim but here we are.

Short term planning is not concrete either, It is looking at the market as it is, and attempting to plan your economy at which would yield the best results for your economy in the long run, and that is what long term planning does, it looks at short-term expectation and try to plan your economy to yield the best results. such as, planning for possible job shifts as technology advances to best suit your nation.

If you asked the people in 1970s and 1980s, hey the future will have flying cars, air lifted skateboards, etc... but looking at, and this is what we were discussing the factory-based jobs, the automation of many of those jobs, and how or what job shifts would have to take place so make that shift more easy as it becomes more normalized in the market on smaller scales, since larger companies are already making that shift.

and once again, that shows me you actually did not read the artist comments as you said you did... which I had already figured out given the first comment and every comment therein.. which as of now the bulk of your comment is speaking nothing what the piece is about ..

Sure, sir.. I am the emotional one.. you write a first comment, which told me you had not read the artist comments, and then here we are still two weeks later, still talking in circles.

Will it go on for a month, two months, another year.. will we agree to disagree and move on, time will tell. As always, I will reply back to your comments when I see em. I have meetings for most of the afternoon so any new comments should be addressed sometime after 6-7PM EST

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-06-07 02:52:10 +0000 UTC]

But I did, didn't I? I left a link from Jihadwatch showing how cops act when Islamic attacks show up. And if you want more proof, here's more for you:
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/…
www.louderwithcrowder.com/man-…
www.forbes.com/sites/rogerscru…

See how easy it is to find proof if you bother to look? This is a repeated case of cops not acting out of fear of being labeled Islamophobic. Hence why your moderate Muslims didn't get any help from the cops, because the cops, as has been proven before in those Western European countries, deign not to act for fear of being labeled Islamophobes.

Except again, the NYPD found enough proof to suspect mosques of being terror networks and began spying on them. Finding enough to be suspicious of the mosques is what drove the NYPD to spy on the mosques in the first place. They would not have done so if they didn't get enough evidence that the mosques were breeding grounds for terror. All you do is talk about "violation of rights" when surveillance violates nobody's rights. If what the NYPD says is true, they'll be able to nip terrorists in the bud. If what they say is false, then they just sat through Muslim sermons and prayer services for nothing. Who knows? Maybe some cops who like how the prayer services go might even convert. Again, if the same case was applied for Christianity, I'd be more than welcome to have cops in the Church. If a Church starts spawning terrorists, it'd only be right to have cops guarding the pews or observing the sermons. If there's terrorists, then they get caught. If there's none, then the cops are just akin to the many visitors listening in to the prayers and sermons at Mass. Nobody's touching anyone's balls here, after all.

Ben Franklin may have passed away, but his friends who echoed his statements did not, and those same "friends" either A) passed the Alien and Sedition Acts or B) supported the French Republic and its horrid Reign of Terror that DID suppress freedom in the name of "Public Safety". So yeah, both sides of the American political isle traded freedom for security. One side did it at home, the other side supported a country that did so abroad. Don't make me laugh.

Are you an idiot? The Americans supported the Shah because the Shah was a progressive ruler. True, he was a dictator, but the Middle East accepts no other rule outside of dictatorship. Americans learned that the hard way when they tried to turn Iraq into a democracy. The Shah was trying to modernize Iran, turn it into a modern economy, and give women and non-Muslims rights that were unprecedented in Islamic history. He was the best person to support in Iran. Fuck, women could even go to the beach wearing bikinis under the Shah. Then the Ayatollahs came to power, and now Iran is a religious theocratic shithole that makes the Spanish Monarchy during the time of the Spanish Inquisition look like a Hippie theme park by comparison. America supported the Shah because he stood for progress. The Ayatollahs took power supposedly on behalf of the poor, but then kept power for themselves and let the poor rot while they lynched anyone not buying into their radical view of Shiite Islam. They were as tyrannical as the Shah, except they turned Iran into an even bigger shithole while joining state politics with the kind of religious extremism that makes Torquemada look like Voltaire. Goes to show that again, you have no mind for actual, down-to-earth politics, just as you have no mind for actual, down-to-earth military tactics. Just activism that can't even grasp the realistic nature of political craft.

Also, the Shiite clergy could have shielded the previous Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, but they chose not to. Why? Because they feared a Communist takeover of the land. The Shah prevented such a takeover but continued Mosaddegh's secular and progressive reforms, only under a pro-Western flag. That's another reason why the coup against Mosaddegh occurred-many sides, including the West, the Shah, and even the Shah's Shiite Clergy adversaries, feared that Mosaddegh was going to lead the country to a Communist takeover. His actions against the British caused the Brits to boycott Iran, which made the country poorer by the second. Many of his own supporters were deserting him, including his own heir apparent, Hussein Makki, as well as the workers-based Toiler's Party leader Mozzafar Baghai. Thanks to Mosaddegh's disastrous effort in enraging the British by nationalizing the oil, the ensuing boycott the British raised in retaliation caused the Iranian economy to crash, and Mosaddegh's coalition to flounder and tear itself apart. A revolution was inevitable. All the CIA did was seek out a proper candidate to replace Mosaddegh, one that can play the part of strongman while continuing Mosaddegh's progressive reforms and keep Iran as a secular country out of the hands of both the Communists and the Shiite radicals. If anything, the CIA did the right thing by intervening and keeping things from falling apart. Mosaddegh would have been lynched by his own party had it not been for the Shah taking over. When both the workers' party and his own heir apparent were rebelling against him, it was clear that Mosaddegh's days were already numbered.

Again, you have a very narrow view of warfare. No general could win battles against a foe that has superior numbers, supplies, and training. Unless you're some kind of God who can turn the tide by sending storms or plagues down the other side, the most you can do when met with a superior foe that has more numbers, supplies, and training than you is to SURVIVE. Again, you have this pie-in-the-sky notion of beating someone that overpowers you in numbers, training, and supplies, which goes to show how impractical your assessments are. So again, Paine's criticisms of Washington hold no weight, when the most that ANYONE can do at that time was survive. And again, Washington's enemies were even worse than him: the moment the French and Spanish arrived to reinforce the peasant colonials, the Brits turned tail and ran after losing a few battles, unlike Washington, who held on despite the odds being against him for years on end. No general could account for having less supplies, numbers, and training than the other side and still win. Name one, and I'll surrender this point. But if you can't name one, then yes, I will call out both you and Paine for being narrow-minded armchair generals with no real mind for military tactics. 

Short term planning is more concrete than long-term planning. And if neither are concrete, then again, your predictions for the future hold no weight. Short-term predictions have more of a chance at being accurate since it's not having faith in predictions for a timeline long after the present. The long term plans tend not to last, as unforseen circumstances can pile up in a 50-year span. At least for a short-term plan, the number of unforseen circumstances can remain lower than that of a longer time.

And again, you fail to take into account technological trends that would make larger companies obsolete. What if technology develops differently from your plans? What if people wind up developing technology that allows them to replicate their objects of desire, especially objects of entertainment that these factories are employed for? Outside of machinery, I don't see factories as essential for other objects of desire for the future, not when 3D printing and other venues are available. 

And my main point is that your whole premise is flawed. A more honest title would be "America's problems" or "the plagues in modern American society". Using a concept like "America is no longer #1" which is inherently a cock-measuring concept while withdrawing from the nature of said concept is idiotic, dishonest, and mainly exists as an emotional appeal.

Which is why, yes, you are the emotional one. You are the one bitching about how America isn't number 1 because of certain problems while not being aware of how other nations have even worse problems than America. Which of course, kills your premise before it even lifts off from the ground.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-06-07 12:48:36 +0000 UTC]

As always, I will reply back when I see a comment and we shall see how long this will go on for..hopefully it will be over before June is over but .. after weeks of this circular discussion, we shall see

That link from Jihadwatch said there was a reported increase of islamphobic attacks after the attacks, the question posed to you, was what evidence do you have that two years ago in one attack, and five years ago with another one did cops not investigate those specific claims, your claim was that they did not want to be labeled as Islamaophobes, so I asked what SPECIFIC evidence to those cops at which can you show that their reason for not doing anything is that they did not want to be labeled as Islamaphobes, and your recent links, does not offer anything to those specific cops in those specific cases which were where your claim was directly made.

Do you have evidence of the reason those specific cops chose not to investigate those claims were because they feared being called Islamophobes?

Of your recent links, only two of them even took place in the actual country, so a bit unsure how or what London cops, who failed to investigate something, which was your claim have to do with Australian police failing to do something which we were not discussing Australia at all,  nor was your claim about Australian cops, it was about the police of Britain at which those recent attacks took place.

Now, should the cops have stepped in on the case of that man who alleged people harassed him, sure, they should have. But that link does not make your case that they failed to do something because they feared being called Islamaophobe, the only link at which addressed that was the first of the three links, which we have already discussed above I believe, and I already said they should have done something if they heard any kids were being abused and said those cops failed in their duty.

But the question was, which was in an entirely different part of the country, with entirety larger city, why those cops failed in their duties to address reports of possible terrorist actions, at which you made a direct claim, and when asked for evidence of said claim you first link me to a link which just said there was an increase in islamphobic attacks after the terrorist attacks, then one link spoke of what Australian cops failed to do .. an entirely different country so I am unsure what they had to do with those London cops, and one man whose report did not say their reason for not doing anything was because they did not wanna be islamphobic but that the cops saw just people saying stuff as more nuisance calls and that they could not do anything until 1 - he called at least twice in a month, or 2- a threat of violence had been made - - at which in the report, he had not called again, and he does not say any threats of violence took place - just people calling him names, .

Now, if you say the Rotherham police should be highly investigated, I would agree, small town cops often are too light footed in their aims and should be investigated and if need be disbanded or new officers should take over that would take a better approach of any inklings of any abuse of child, but we were not discussing Rotherham,. with its 250K population, we were discussing London attacks, with its almost 7 million population, and Manchester with its 2.5 million population and why those specific cops failed in their duties in both attacks, when in the first attack the guy was reported five years ago, and in the latest attack that guy had been reported two years ago to authorities and it seems all they did was file a report and that was about it - - your direct claim of why they did not investigate was because they did not wanna be labeled as Islamophobes and then to "prove" your case, you link me to one report from an entirely different country, and another report which was not according to the own man in the report not call a second time and no threats of violence made, and then in the last report, an entirely different city with different local leadership, police, etc.

I did look, and even those links, did not prove your direct claim, if you had kept your claim more general then that would have helped your case, but since I asked about a specific group of cops, your claims have not yet been made.

Actually they did not, did you even look up the cases, you say see how easy it is to find proof when you bother to look and yet it is clear you did not even look up the NYPD case,  Since it was not that they suspected anyone in those mosques from being part of any terrorist activity, it was in the post craze 9/11 world, and this program went on from 2002 - 2014 ... after a 2011 story broke of the surveillance of the communities, several of the communities and Islamic civil rights groups took them to  court where the cops said they had no reports of anyone, in particular, was part of any terroristic groups, when asked in court directly by the judge in the 12 years of spying were any arrests made in connection to terrorism that stemmed from their surveillance, they said no, and the only rationale was because of their Islamic faith and what they called origins.. the judge found that violated their civil rights because under US law we have several "protected classes" Religion being on and nation of origin being another, at which you cannot just say you are or one of your distance relatives are from here.. or you are a Muslim and that alone is why I will spy on you .. the judge said if they had gotten credible tips that the community or mosques were pushing radicalization then that would have made the surveillance okay but the cops all but admitted that was not the reason and two judges, both the original and on appeal found the surveillance to be unconstitutional.

So you ONCE AGAIN made a claim and it is clear you did not look up the NYPD case.... and yet in 12 years, they had not arrested a single person from the communities they were spying on in connection to terrorism.. how long can one be illegally spied on just to make you feel safe?

Yes, sir, I do and will keep talking about "violation of rights" because if you do not protect the rights of another, do not be surprised when there is no one there to protect yours.

If the cops had evidence of such, I would have been like OKAY.. investigate, yet they did not and under oath admitted such in court.


"His friends" which have what to do with the specific quote of Franklin? .. you are grasping deep for that one...oh he did not do it.. BUT HIS FRIENDS DID ALMOST A DECADE LATER.. which would still not be on him..

If you think they could have shielded him against two of the most powerful governments on the world, in a nation that was literally very new to power having only gotten its first constitution a few decades earlier, and was still forming in its democratic and military approaches .. which had only been given full independence 10 years earlier during the "Tehran Declaration" where Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill in 1943 granted it full independence and no more control from foreign nations as it had been for decades. The largest communist nation at the time was the Soviet Union, seems odd they would fear communist takeover when the largest or one of the most powerful communist nations just literally said that they would not interfere, . the issue was less of a communist takeover.. or else why would the people elect a man who would push for a secular government, who pushed for education of women etc.. very progressive man.

No, the Americans supported the Shah because he was much more willing to allow us access to those oil rights, Mohammad Mosaddegh was also a progressive ruler, he was a secular Muslim who thought religion and faith should not rule a government, he thought women should be educated at the same heights as men, he was for greater working rights for women, his grave mistake was thinking Iranian oil should benefit the Iranian people.. so you ask if I am an idiot because the US overthrew a Democratically elected leader, who was very progressive just to install their own dictator who would allow them access to the oil.

The "Shah" prevented a takeover ... hmm more like the Shah was more willing to allow the West access to their energy rights, something Mosaddegh was not. The largest communist party in Iran, held very few seats in Iran, nowhere near enough to hold much power or make many demands.. so if the new narrative has they feared a communist takeover, history would tell a different view of how unlikely that was.

so it was less a grand appeal to a communist takeover, and more who will be able to drill.. the same thing we are currently seeing in Syria.

... but hey,  saing sure the CIA should have overthrown a democratically elected leader, and backed his opposition and  then install someone else and you say that is the right thing.. to each their own.


No one said a general will win each and every battle, you continuously argue against simple criticisms of battle strategy at which even Washington spoke of his failings in those battles in his diaries.. so you continue to argue against a point at which even Washington made.

It is better to gage something short term, but no business owner, no government or society who expected to succeed only gages short term solutions, as such you prepare for the future lest it leaves you behind. That is why you have engineers, scientists, etc not only planning 10..20 years but also seeing where we will be in 30, 40 years, with respect to population sizes if they remain steady, job prospects, technological advances, etc.

The What if question is what is being discussed here, could some small company invent something at which would make it competitive  with larger companies, sure, and the market will have to shift to account for those advances, jobs, etc as well. better to tweak a plan than to live leap from new idea, to new idea and be unprepared completely.

and your  main point, in my view is incorrect, since if anyone who had read the piece, as it seems many did since you are one of the few who keep arguing on the title and then not really addressing much of the text .. like someone who reads the title of a book, then attacks the book before ever  turning to a page. Which is basically all you did.. OH YOU NAMED THE STAMP THIS.. I will not read the text and claim I did .. AND THEN ATTACK THE NAME.

oh he said bitching again.. fun times.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Vader999 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-06-09 08:49:26 +0000 UTC]

The links from Jihadwatch showed how cops ignoring Islamic crimes while focusing on "Islamophobia" is an ongoing matter. This is the classic case of you reading the article bare-bones without understanding the context or message of the articles themselves. They talked of how police are too afraid of being seen as Islamophobic to even act against Muslims. Which I then use to explain why the Muslim moderates who tried to snitch on some radicals got no help-the phenomenon of cops fearing the label of Islamophobia was something that the articles addressed, and I used that to explain why the moderate Muslims got no help despite snitching on fellow Muslims-if those cops acted on the information, even if it came from Muslims, they'd be seen as Islamophobes.

London, Australia, and other Western countries are facing the same phenomenon. Look at the other articles on Jihadwatch concerning Europe, Australia, even the United States. The whole website was made as a response against the rise of Islamic violence and terrorism-and a lot of their research talks about Islamic violence IN THE WEST. Hence the title Jihad Watch-to watch out for Jihad in non-Islamic nations. 
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/eu-…
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/aus…
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/uk-…
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/lon…
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/thi…
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/ram…
www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/fed…

Again, if you even bothered to research the NYPD spy operations against the mosques, the NYPD began their investigations because they suspected the mosques as terror centers. Why would they suspect the mosques to be terror centers if they didn't have anything that could prove it or at least cast suspicion on these mosques? 

Oh, wait, the organizations who sued the NYPD over spying on mosques HAS ACTUAL TERROR TIES! OOPS!
clarionproject.org/evidence-su…

And as the article states, the cops didn't target Mosques based on a craze, but because they were following ACTUAL CRIMINALS who may have had ties with these mosques, who rightly feared that these houses of worship were being used for something else other than a weekend sermon on spiritual values. 

Procuring illegal arms, teaching people how to assault law officials, the proof is as bright as day. And yet just like any liberal, you stick with the narrative instead of the truth.

Franklin's friends-which would still be on him, because those were the ones who agreed with him and patronized him, only to turn years later. And if he was alive, he'd have probably gone with them. Franklin himself made disparaging remarks about German Americans, insinuating that they cannot be integrated into US society, which suggested that they would have faced discrimination had Franklin lived longer and attained some level of power. 

After all, this was the same guy who originally was a big proponent of the British Empire, even supporting the taxes on tea, until the populace turned against it and he was forced to change his tune.

The Shiite Clerics could have buttressed Mohammad Mossadegh's failing regime and could have made the overthrow of his government harder. They didn't, because they feared that he was weak against Communists.

And Mossadegh's government was already failing without the coup. The workers' party, as I mentioned, turned against him. His own heir apparent and successor (how democratic) turned against him. The populace was turning against him thanks to his disastrous move to nationalize oil and piss off the British. The British boycott against Iran impoverished the country and caused the nation to be impoverished to the point where Mossadegh's own allies and minions turned against him. A collapse was inevitable. All the Americans did was pick a guy who can be strong to succeed the man.

Mossadegh's job was not to nationalize oil. His job was to ensure the prosperity and welfare of the Iranian people. And his decision to nationalize oil hurt the welfare and prosperity of Iran thanks to the British getting pissy and boycotting Iranian goods. Taking away the oil from the one country that buys most of your stuff is one good way to cause people to betray you and impoverish your country. It wasn't just about the oil, it was about the chaos in Iran caused by the British boycott and Mossadegh's refusal to back down despite the country getting impoverished by said boycott. All he needed to do was reach a compromise with England, yet he chose pride over sense. He would have gotten toppled anyways-especially when the populace was turning against him, the workers' party was turning against him, his own heir apparent turned against him, the coup putting the Shah in power met little to no resistance from the Iranian people because it was for the better.

And again, the rebels against the Shah didn't do it for democracy or secularism. They did it for Shiite religious ideals and "the poor", even though they only followed through on the former and left the latter to live in squalor. The Shah would have kept the progressive reforms Mossadegh started without shitting on the economy or pissing off foreign economic partners.

Really? So, Washington was criticizing himself for not being able to pull off a victory despite lacking training, superior numbers, and supplies? I hardly doubt it. More like the man was just jotting down his losses and desired a bit better. But the most he or anyone in his position can do is survive. And again, his British enemies were even weaker-the moment the tide turned against them, they turned tail and reached for the peace table. They couldn't stomach fighting from a disadvantage for long, unlike GW.

Yet as I said before, long-term plans don't take into account trends that can change and upset plans that last 30-40 years. As you yourself said, it's better to plan for the short term. Yes, one can have plans for the long term, but they're only contingencies. And they hardly remain accurate when such plans get upended by unpredictable factors. Compare long term to short term planning, and the latter is more accurate, while the former is only there as a backup in case things go as planned for longer than anticipated.

I'm attacking the title, kid. Not the piece. Yes, you can be right when arguing about America's problems. But you chose the wrong title, since a #1 nation count is automatically a dick-measuring contest. It's like you saying that "this piece is non-sexual" then making the title of the article "Pussy-Dick relations". But again, my point is that you can't use that title without it being a dick measuring contest, and I even provided ways of how America can be surpassed as the #1 nation from an objective perspective.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Vader999 [2017-06-09 13:18:35 +0000 UTC]

As always, I will reply back when I see it, this reply was a bit sorter than my previous one, and your reply was a bit shorter than your previous one.. so we shall see if this will soon before or.. if it will go on for weeks more.. in 2 days it will be three weeks.. but time will tell.

One link did not much speak of police inaction, it spoke of how after the attacks police reported an increase in attacks against Muslims, which was not the claim with respect to why the cops did not act when those men were reported, 2 years in one case and 5 years in another - - though SADLY I am sure you know, with respect to the first link that happens here as well, after terrorist attacks you see increase people targeting Muslims. Happened after 9/11, happened after Ft. Hood and other terrible attacks on US soil.

The question sir, was very simple. I said a simple thing, that in the last few attacks one of the men were reported 5 years ago and in the latest one that guy was reported to the cops, by Muslims, 2 years ago - you said their inaction was because they did not wish to be labeled Islamophobic, neither of your previous links spoke to that specifically, and your current links, also do not speak to why those London cops failed to do their job, you made a direct claim, I was looking for your direct evidence - - not claims from other countries, which are not those London authorities, and not claims from other States/cities in Britain.

You made a direct claim on Y.. and when I asked for direct evidence on Y - - you started speaking of X.

No one has denied that other atrocities have happened in other countries, and sadly in some respects, that police in other areas have also failed in their jobs. Nor is it unheard of that terrorist who has lived in a country have blended into those societies and in some cases winning awards and being previously recognized for things other than terrorism.


I did bother to research the NYPD spy operations, and read the release transcripts the lawyers released from both sides.. so Though I laughed at the link's claim of Islamist mosques, since the cops said there was nothing they found in those mosques that lead them to believe there were any ties of terrorism.

I also love the citing of the Iman, which I take it you did not go read the 1993 trial, he was not indicted because they they had no evidence he had any part in it, was also one of almost 200 people who the police tagged as "unindicted co conspirators" yet have no evidence and he has denied taking part in it. What he did speak with at their trial was that two of them attended their Mosque and from what he knew of them they never caused trouble at the mosque.. similar to how one would ask their religious leader to speak on their behalf.

Are you saying, in  this country, the State can accuse you of something, not charge you with it and then it must be taken as fact?

As well as they are speaking of select mosques at which they started looking at in 2008 and 2005, not the over a dozen they had been looking at since 2002 which was what the court said was anti-constitutional, If the cops have evidence  that they are doing anything illegal, charge em, why would I care? but you cannot say you may have done something a decade before so we will spy on you for another 15 years.

The New Jersey was not named in the lawsuit, and at the court, the NYPD admitted they had no real reason to spy on the Brooklyn one you cited for so longer. No one has said, especially not the ACLU who was one of the main people in the lawsuit said if you  have credible evidence, like one of the parishioners tried to join an terrorist group as one you referenced, and you want to investigate the mosque that you should not - but just a blanket investigation and surveillance of over a dozen mosques in a 100 mile radius of NY because of their religion is not a constitutional reason. Yet they were spying on that mosque for about 6 years before that happened, so attempting to use that incident as justification of why they were spied on, in a mosque of hundreds, one person attempting to go to the Middle East seems a weak argument personally.

lmao @ "yet just like any liberal, you stick with the narrative instead of the truth."

. So now the NYPD failure to prove why they put over a dozen mosques under surveillance, and two judges, one of them, the appeals court judge, was appointed by George Pataki.. but somehow them failing to convince the initial judge appointed by a Democrat so I guess you can say liberal. nor the appeals court judge who was appointed by Pataki who is very conservative... that it is somehow liberals fault that the cops failed to make their case to both a more liberal judge and more conservative-leaning judge.


The actions your friends do almost a decade after you die, are not on you, yet that seems to be the case you are making for Franklin. That men he knew, passed a law a decade after his death and that is on him .. hmm

 - - I see you are doing that that thing again, one quote from Franklin which had nothing to do with taxes or what his friends did a decade after his death now you are speaking of.. his view on the Tax Act

Tell me, what does that quote, have to do with his view on the tax act? It is similar to what you did with Paine, .. attempt to attack everythinge else other than the quote to .. what? just drag the conversation into other areas
Well it was not the taxes on tea that was the great issue, It was the continuous raising of the taxes on tea without representation in Parliament to have a voice to speak against it - - but Franklin had hoped
www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea…
www.bostonteapartyship.com/tea…


that they could redress their issue with the Parliament and thus there be no violence.

Though I am a bit unsure what does the Franklin quote have to do with his view on TEA Act, nor what his friends did a decade after his birth .. I am more than willing to speak but it seems the continuous interjecting of random things not being discussed is perhaps why this has gone on for weeks.


If you think a new nation, only getting its constitution about a decade before, and just forming a new found freedom was a match for the US and British governments then that seems .. interesting.

He had been elected overwhelmingly, and was in office less than 6 months before the US, according to our own declassified documents which were declassified in 2003 after the 50 year classiication period was over, which we found they had already started the plans for a coup, not because the people are turned against them but because of his nationalization wants which would lose America billions a year  he was still relatively popular with the people having just been elected, so they chose Zahedi to lead the coup with intelligence, arms and agents from America .. to then install a leader at which would be more favorable to them and the oil extraction. Though as cited already, the1956 congressional Bruce-Lovett report said that is pretty much what it was all about, the oil.. which sadly has ruled American foreign policy for nearly 70+ years.

We turned a blind eye, as we often do sadly - as the Shah jailed political opponents, journalists, how he had banned the party of Mosaddegh, and several other opposing parties  - - but hey, for cheap oil we will do almost anything.

As Prime Minister, that was up to him, he ran on a platform of nationalizing the oil, he ran on that and apparently the people knowing this elected him- it is not then up to the US to say, you ran on this, you won.. so we will within a few months, So Britain and the US got together, and overthrew him and installed a leader who was more to their liking who will basically let them take the massive profits from their resources. Started planting the seeds of discontention and start the process of overthrowing you for someone who is more to our liking. - -sadly is the case in many nations according to that congressional report in 1956.

Do you want a foreign government owning your leader? While I do not buy into the RUSSIA, RUSSIA hysteria of this country at the root is the claim they do not want a foreign leader controlling the President. It is no different then, they knew the Shah was backed by British and the US and in part worked to further their interests, so you had different groups opposing him but that was a central charge, one that is very understandable even if it then led us overthrowing a secular man who thought religion had no ruling place in government to now the State being ruled by religion.


Washington, like any general looks at why he lost, he looks at what tactics could be employed for better results, that is how you learn.. yet your insistence of.. well he lost a few battles so you cannot criticize him because his enemies were larger and had more provisions makes absolutely no sense.

If you own a business, you plan for short term and long term trends. I do not know if you have stocks or anything but that is similar, yes short term investing is far easier because you can see the trends much easier, but long-term investing, which tends to yield more is also riskier because variables change over the court of time.

This is no difference, yes you look at short-term trends which are a lot easier to tell which way the water is going and easier to plan for, but you also lay down the tracks for long term markets and see where it is heading and adjust according to as you go along - but saying hey make no plan because you do not know where you will be in 30, 40 years vs make a plan and it is far easier to adapt to the changing plans as time progresses, making minor changes here and there vs having no plan and just winging it the entire way.

lmao @ kid... 

If you had read the piece, then much of your early claims would have been already addressed.. but it is clear you did not read it when you commented as you said you did.. instead you picked up a book and knowing nothing of the text you attacked the title.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Hungry-aloo In reply to ??? [2017-05-11 10:47:31 +0000 UTC]

I AM REALLY LAUGHING TO SEE PEOPLE SHOUTING DOWN BELOW
THEY SHOULD KNOW, EVERY COUNTRY IS NO.1 TO THE EVERY PERSON LIVING ON IT 

IF YOUR AMERICAN, AMERICA IS NO.1 FOR YOU
IF YOU ARE INDIAN, INDIA IS NO.1 FOR YOU
IF YOU ARE RUSSIAN, RUSSIA IS NO.1 FOR YOU 

COMMENT GIVERS SHOULD STOP BEING TRIGGERED & ALL.
CAUSE BY DEFENDING,  THEY ARE ACTUALLY INSULTING OTHER COUNTRIES & GIVING OTHERS A THOUGHT THAT AMERICANS ARE "DAMN SHIT PROUD".
IF YOU MAKE PEOPLE THINK THAT AMERICANS ARE "DAMN SHIT PROUD", THAT MAKES AMERICA NOT THE NO.1 ALREADY  .

STOP BEING KIDDISH PEOPLE, GROW UP

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Hungry-aloo [2017-05-11 12:51:54 +0000 UTC]

I think many other countries can look at realities of their situation..

If you are speaking pf prison population, federal revenue, number of countries we are in  then yes America would be number 1.

If one is speaking of healthcare ranking, economic mobility, education, then we are more like in the twenties and thirties

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TokioIfuato In reply to ??? [2017-04-25 06:37:10 +0000 UTC]

I'm American and I actually agree   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to TokioIfuato [2017-04-25 14:38:53 +0000 UTC]

  I am surprised some people take America is not number 1 to mean.. AMERICA IS THE WORST COUNTRY EVER!! (not you .. just going by some of the comments below)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TokioIfuato In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-04-25 22:08:15 +0000 UTC]

Yeah thanks, I see allot of triggered people down there  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to TokioIfuato [2017-04-26 14:10:25 +0000 UTC]

lmao, very true

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ForceOfNatureAndCorn In reply to ??? [2017-04-19 14:51:39 +0000 UTC]

And neither is any other country.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

gemoholic In reply to ??? [2017-04-12 23:11:33 +0000 UTC]

This entire world could be number 1 but people are shitty everywhere so...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to gemoholic [2017-04-13 15:33:39 +0000 UTC]

ageed

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Zitronecye In reply to ??? [2017-04-11 05:36:05 +0000 UTC]

Exactly, Canada is better

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

AwesomeCALIArtist In reply to Zitronecye [2017-04-12 21:58:33 +0000 UTC]

I agree

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AtheosEmanon In reply to Zitronecye [2017-04-11 11:42:12 +0000 UTC]

I enjoy Canada's social safety nets, and enjoy visiting but .. I also enjoy guns so doubt I would ever live there as a permanent or primary residence

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Zitronecye In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-04-11 14:57:35 +0000 UTC]

(Sorry if I sounded rude, my intentions where to sound funny) I watch too many murder/crime shows. And as a result i am absolutely terrified of guns

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Zitronecye [2017-04-11 15:14:19 +0000 UTC]

You did not sound rude, do not worry about it.

I grew up around a military and law enforcement family - my father was in the military then became a cop.. of his 7 kids, 4 were in the military .. most of his side of the family were in the military or law enforcement so I have been around guns all my life, and have been shooting since I was six.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Ren-Okara In reply to ??? [2017-03-26 12:04:48 +0000 UTC]

Yes it is

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-03-27 02:54:58 +0000 UTC]

By what measure, .. largest economy, yes.. largest prison population, yes, in bankruptcy due to medical bills, yes, in military spending yes, there are things at which comparative to other nations America is number 1 as. but on the scope of social progressive, at what measure, can you objectively say America is number 1?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ren-Okara In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-03-27 14:51:34 +0000 UTC]

Freedom, Woman's rights, Freedom of business, Freedom of Expression, Freedom to have a gun, Freedom of job selection, Scientific abilities, Technology, Foreign Aid.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-03-27 15:27:38 +0000 UTC]

... America is not the only country with any of those things.

Those are talking points..

Are you going to sit here and tell me that the country that has jailed more whistle blowers in the last few years than any other nation is the freest on earth?

That the country that does not provide maternity leave, as almost every other industrialized nation on earth is the epitome of what it is to have women's rights?

"freedom of business" .. is America the only nation at which companies are free to do business?

"freedom of expression" is America the only nation with the freedom of its citizens to express themselves?

"freedom to have a gun" .. is America the only country where people are able to own firearms?

"freedom of job selection" so in every other  nation your job is selected for you and you have no choice to select your own or go for your own job?

"scientific abilities"
America is the only nation with "scientific abilities?

"technology, Foreign aid"
America is the only country with technology and that gives foreign Aid?
you can say we give more foreign aid than any individual other nation, and that is great but the mantle of greatness as Jefferson and Paine stated.. is measured by the citizens of that country

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ren-Okara In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-03-27 16:17:45 +0000 UTC]

1. Yes

2. Maternity leave exists, my mother's on it, next point

3,4,5. Yes yes and also yes

6. I mean it's easy to get the job you want, well, usually.

7. No, but we lead

8. We lead in technology and foreign aid, according to the UN anyways.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-03-27 16:54:00 +0000 UTC]

1. interesting view of freedom

2. some companies have maternity leave, America is one of the few industrialized nations that does not have maternity leave in their federal laws.

3-5. prove your case.. that America is the ONLY nation with freedom of business, expression and that allows you to own a gun.

 6. Not overly difficult in many other nations as well.. so unsure how this point makes any point.

7. Yes, on scientific advancements we do very good at.

8..  I assume you mean inland, at which usually America and Japan switch usually year by year..
exports.. not even close but I assume you mean inland.


Though the mantle of "greatest" as Jefferson and Paine states is measures by the advancements of your people.. can you look at American citizens, and proclaim America is number 1 when we have one of the highest poverty rates than any industrialized countries, where 15% of the country 42 million people has food insecurity, where America has the highest prison population on earth, where America is the only nation at which people go bankrupt due to medical needs, one of the slowest economic mobility of its middle class

.. a country where 51% of its workers make what amounts to a poverty wage or 30K or less per year?

As I said to the other guy, I do not deny that America is a great nation but if one is going to claim it is the greatest nation then it must address .. in a meaningful way its great shortcomings before it can boast of such a title.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ren-Okara In reply to AtheosEmanon [2017-04-19 18:14:22 +0000 UTC]

Okay, I've thought long and hard about this.

1. Yes, it is interesting that I want the law followed huh?

2. It does not need it, as it is frowned upon to not have it, if you can name a company that doesn't, I will concede defeat.

3-5. almost all of the Middle East and Europe

6. Not quite, it's really the easiest here, just work for it

7. Thank you

8. Aid we lead externally, this is a UN statistic that is boasted by the U.N.

Yes, i can happily say we are the best, as we have programs for these people, such as welfare, so they can find better jobs, make a good income, and still work, food stamps, welfare, and government grants are given to those in need almost constantly, and with Poverty decreasing by nearly 116% in the last years according to the IRS, it is unlikely this will be worth debating

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AtheosEmanon In reply to Ren-Okara [2017-04-20 03:05:53 +0000 UTC]

As always, I will reply back when I See your comment

1. It is interesting that you believe at which a country that constantly violates your liberties are therefore must silent and never speak of it.. that being one should never tell you that your government is collecting every phone call you make, every time you swipe cards, tracking internet usage etc.. but the law is not reason free that is if we are of a maxim the law must always be followed, a maxim I do not share, then we would never have had ended slavery,never would have had women's suffrage, integration, civil rights movements etc because all were opposing laws of the day - - that and to take it further we would never have a country to start with.

2. It is not about "conceding defeat" it is about fixing things in the system as such to make the goals somewhat equitable to the plans  when they put them in place.

"it is frowned upon not to have it" it did need it, and we got a minor one back in 1993 which is very weak because as that report states.. only 1 in 6 companies in America fall under that 1993 law since most companies do not have 50 employees and as such do not have to offer it and many of them do it
As of 2015 report from s 2012 auditing  according to the Department of Labor, 41% of workers worked for companies at which did not provide health nor maternity leave
www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/fml…



As of 2016 , the US ranks dead last in the top industrial nations, the US is the only, as a matter of law not to provide paid maternity lave
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/…

So while most companies with 50 employees or more must offer it, many smaller ones do not have to, so you are correct that most large companies have it but the issue is, as most other nations have is that it is not paid maternity leave, by law the leave is unpaid, and so while you may say then they should not have gotten pregnant or what have you .. that places of course the poorest of persons having to go right back to work because they cannot afford a weeks without pay


in a nation where 7/10 Americans have less than 1,000 in savings, and 50% of workers make less than 30K a year according to a 2015 Social security, unpaid maternity leave, most workers cannot afford to go weeks without being paid .. and that is where America is failing and why our maternity leave laws are some of the worst in the industrialized world.

now for you that may mean it is still the greatest with respect to this thing, but looking objectively at this specific thing I cannot see how anyone can honestly say we do it the best.






3-5 saying almost all of the Middle East and Europe is not proving your case.. can you prove your case or not?

.6- actually it is not the "easiest" here, especially if you mean a decent job. over 50% of all new jobs for the last few years have been service industry jobs with tend to be on the bottom end of the scale.

7.  um okay?

8. Yes, but your premise spoke of technology and foreign aid, of technology America and Japan, often switch between 1 and 2 slots year by year. On a straight numbers basis yes, America leads in foreign aid.. on a percent of he budget, we do not but I assume you mean straight numeral basis.


If to you, the greatest country has half of its workers that make below 30K a year, have 45K people dying every year due to a lack of healthcare, one of the slowest economically climbing for a middle class in the Western industrialized nations, bankruptcies due to medical bills, more education debt than credit card debt if that is what it takes to be number 1 then it is a position unearned.

"almost instantly",  having worked with social services and helping people apply for said grants, there is little instant in that almost.

" and with Poverty decreasing by nearly 116% in the last years according to the IRS, it is unlikely this will be worth debating"
116%? for something to have decreased 116% means you would have eradicated poverty ... was that meant to be 16%?

poverty decreasing is great, but there is still a great deal worth debating.

So while I will say and have said America is a great country, it has many social, educational, judicial,and economic things to fix to attain GREATEST .. but you are free to think it is the greatest if you wish. I cannot tell another what to think.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ryujinomega092095 In reply to AtheosEmanon [2020-04-25 15:38:24 +0000 UTC]

You tell him AtheoEmanon! America doesn't have anything post-war Japan doesn't already have!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1