What, seriously?
The number one problem with America...
- Thread starter Cmdr Shepard
- Start date
What, seriously?
'WOULD'? I think you mean "are".
Ask any employee of a large 'American' corporation who has not received more than a pittance of a raise in 3-4 years and who has many former co-workers who have been laid off and are now losing their homes to offshoring...while the big guys at the top pay themselves massive bonuses because of all the money they 'saved'...on what was already a profitable company that actually used to employ more Americans than Indians.
Those guys don't care one bit about America or Americans. They care only about lining their own pockets. And it doesn't matter at whose expense. They don't even care if America itself goes down the toilet, as long as they can buy that 5th multi-million dollar home.
Oh there's plenty of vanilla ice cream, unfortunately it's French vanilla ice cream.
Buy only Freedom vanilla ice cream.
A
Amaris
Guest
Vanilla Bean ice cream is the best.
Well, okay, that and Ben & Jerry's Karamel Sutra.
Well, okay, that and Ben & Jerry's Karamel Sutra.
^ First time I've heard the words "vanilla" and "sutra" in the same paragraph. 
There have been a few remarks in this thread regarding Canada and Canadians that I have found to involve bigotry and prejudice and to be unjustifiably offensive.
1) There is an implicit insinuation that Canada is some sort of garbage dump, when an American invites another American, with whom he disagrees, to leave the States and head off to Canada. Not only is this insinuation prejudiced and therefore offensive to Canadians, and not only does it suggest complete ignorance about what life in Canada is like, but also the invitation itself is fundamentally un-American, as it refuses to support the speaker's First Amendment right to free speech, even if their position be disagreeable. I am well aware that this sort of invitation has become fashionable in the past decade, and perhaps it has been so for longer, but its fashionability in no way makes it acceptable.
2) Saying there are too many f-ing Canadians in the United States serves no purpose in a forum such as this, except to be inflammatory.
My comments here are intended neither to support nor refute the OP, but I believe they are fair and reasonable comments regarding replies to the OP. In case you don't know it, I'm an American (natural born), not that that should matter. Don't mean to be a killjoy. Thank you.
1) There is an implicit insinuation that Canada is some sort of garbage dump, when an American invites another American, with whom he disagrees, to leave the States and head off to Canada. Not only is this insinuation prejudiced and therefore offensive to Canadians, and not only does it suggest complete ignorance about what life in Canada is like, but also the invitation itself is fundamentally un-American, as it refuses to support the speaker's First Amendment right to free speech, even if their position be disagreeable. I am well aware that this sort of invitation has become fashionable in the past decade, and perhaps it has been so for longer, but its fashionability in no way makes it acceptable.
2) Saying there are too many f-ing Canadians in the United States serves no purpose in a forum such as this, except to be inflammatory.
My comments here are intended neither to support nor refute the OP, but I believe they are fair and reasonable comments regarding replies to the OP. In case you don't know it, I'm an American (natural born), not that that should matter. Don't mean to be a killjoy. Thank you.
^^ I believe the Poster was inviting himself to move to Canada.
Oh, sure. We have all kinds of nutty factions, including the people who would seem to prefer some sort of feudal system of armed enclaves; and we live in a phase where the extremists are driving the bus. This, too, will pass. Hopefully.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Our problem is not mistrust in the government, it is the government.
The government is us--we put them there. By your logic, voters are the problem, not government.
You can't be serious. There were halfhearted secession movements by New England Federalists and abolitionists, and two more serious secession threats by South Carolina decades before the Civil War ever rolled around.
If by "real people" you mean wealthy university educated (unlike 99% of the country at the time) mostly plantation and slave owning men who gained wealth through marriage and inheritance, then yeah, they're "real people." Adjusted for today's dollars, Washington was by far the wealthiest US president with well over half a billion. You have to wait until you get to #15 Buchanan to get the first one who wasn't an (adjusted) millionaire. Even Lincoln was born middle class (his father was a successful carpenter and farmer), was a highly sought after attorney, married into some money, and lived a decent upper middle class lifestyle before becoming president.
http://247wallst.com/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/2/
Nonsense. The state governments retain plenty of power.
Which begs the question of why you are able to talk so openly about it without a CIA hit squad taking you out as we speak.
I think I'm probably giving you too much credit, but if you're referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, his targeted kill order had to be approved by the National Security Council and the President, and is the first such (official) order against an American citizen given to the CIA in our nation's history, and generated a ton of controversy and a legal battle as a result without him even being assassinated yet. Nor is he being targeted for "knowing too much," but rather because he's a pretty bad dude to put it mildly; and I mean bin Laden level bad.
Now, does that mean the CIA has never intentionally targeted and killed American citizens before, in secret? I don't know for sure, but then neither do you. Hence the whole secret part.
Name one liberal elected official in the federal government who is seriously putting forward a law to ban guns. And I don't mean trying to pass laws on waiting periods, background checks, magazine capacity, and so forth. I mean actually trying to outright ban guns completely.
Oh, it's by the people all right. It's just sometimes many of the people don't vote in their own best interest, and take a knee-jerk stance against things they would otherwise usually support when the debate is not framed with scare words and falsehoods and is actually explained to them reasonably.
It's a bit hard to take your complaints about trolling in other forums seriously when you post stuff like this.
That's cute, but not remotely accurate given the situation in the two countries we're occupying today. No US oil companies secured post-war Iraqi oil contracts, and few tried because they weren't profitable enough. Most of the contracts went to state-owned oil firms from Russia, Japan, Norway, Turkey, South Korea, Angola, China, and Malaysia who were willing to give up favorable returns on their investment in exchange for securing long term drilling rights.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html
Afghanistan wasn't even thought to have major oil deposits until some were discovered last year, and the US Geological Survey helped them discover vast mineral wealth in the country recently which the Afghanis are auctioning off the mining rights to to numerous international bidders, with China being the frontrunner.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/08/20108159431776396.html
We could have been as bad as the cynics suggest and just taken all the oil and mineral wealth we wanted since we were in control of all or most of those countries, but we didn't.
Apart from being the moral thing to do as the wealthiest nation in the world, and being the best means of actually promoting domestic security, giving out foreign aid is good for the US economy and helps those homeless and jobless people at home you mention.
http://www.devex.com/en/blogs/the-d...n-serve-us-economic-interests-experts-say?g=1
As you post on a forum on the internet that wouldn't exist without that government you despise so much.
Government has a lot of problems, no doubt, but I saw your proposals for overhauling it in that thread from a few months ago, and frankly most of your suggestions were at best unworkable and undesirable.
CorporalCaptain I am sorry if you think I have a bad image of Canada. I don't actually, I would love to move there, to one of the wooded areas in a log cabin by a lake where I can fish(and release) whenever I want.
I was only joking when I said that Canadians don't fight anyone. Its actually the truth, Canada is the only nation in North America that is non-aggressive. Its actaully a good thing. While they did help in Iraq, thats pretty much the extent of their military campaign, that I know of.
I was only joking when I said that Canadians don't fight anyone. Its actually the truth, Canada is the only nation in North America that is non-aggressive. Its actaully a good thing. While they did help in Iraq, thats pretty much the extent of their military campaign, that I know of.
Plus there were the little things known as the Alien and Sedition Acts and the response, which was the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
I think we tried the "Change" thing with Obama. He is clearly struggling to buck against the established system. The few changes that he has implemented are all very likely to be over-turned by subsequent presidents and congresses.
They could have passed MANY more things but the democrats are whiny babies that never try and just keep giving in more and more to the other side.
The only real change will come with a full revolt of the government, which will never happen because Americans are lazy stupid bastards.
Lead the way, webolutionary. We'll be right behind you. Promise.
