Page 1 of 34 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 662

Thread: Will America Break Up?

  1. #1
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    23,914
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Exclamation Will America Break Up?

    Will America Break Up?
    March 25, 2010

    By Jeffrey T. Kuhner

    President Obama is splintering America. The passage of Obamacare was a historic victory for liberal governance. Yet, its true cost may be that it triggers the eventual breakup of the country.

    Mr. Obama has achieved what his liberal predecessors - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Bill Clinton - could only dream of: nationalized health care. Obamacare signifies the government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It has dealt a mortal blow to traditional America. We are now a European-style socialist welfare state. The inevitable permanent tax hikes, massive public bureaucracy and liberal ruling elites will stifle competition and initiative.

    Republicans vow to repeal Obamacare. Their past record, however, leaves many conservatives rightly skeptical. Since FDR's New Deal, Big-Government liberalism has been on the march - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Education. The Republican Party has been unable to roll back the tide of statism. In fact, under Richard Nixon and both George Bushes, Great Society Republicans have been complicit in erecting a nanny state.

    Socialism is the road to economic ruin and fiscal bankruptcy. It subverts democracy, threatening the very future of our constitutional republic. Socialist states degenerate into some form of autocracy or technocratic neo-feudalism, whereby the productive class is taxed and exploited to sustain a growing dependent class. Factions are pitted against each other; groups vie for handouts at the expense of their fellow citizens. The bonds of economic union and national solidarity slowly dissolve.

    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not," warned Thomas Jefferson.

    Jefferson was right: Redistributionist welfare policies are undermining our democracy. The resentments in America are growing. Tea Partiers believe that their government no longer represents their interests or values. The heartland is becoming dangerously alienated from the political class, whom it feels has betrayed them.

    Obamacare may be the last straw. It strips away fundamental economic liberties, empowering the federal government to de facto nationalize everyone's body by controlling our health. Americans are compelled - upon pain of penalty and eventual imprisonment - to purchase insurance.

    Moreover, the law codifies the federal funding of abortion. Taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize the murder of innocent life. Hence, Mr. Obama has violated the social compact: He has abrogated the conscience of pro-lifers, making them tacitly complicit in the slaughter of the unborn. Obamacare is a radical assault upon fundamental religious freedoms.

    The Obama revolution threatens to tear America apart. This has happened before. Slavery eventually triggered the Civil War between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Abortion is the slavery of our time - the denying of basic human rights to an entire category of people.

    The bitter debate over Obamacare has exposed the country's profound divisions. We are no longer one nation or one people. Rather, there are now two Americas: one conservative, the other liberal. Increasingly, we no longer just disagree but we despise each other.

    Our disagreements encompass everything - politics, morality, culture and history. We no longer share a unifying essence or common values. One half of America believes abortion is an abomination; the other half considers any attempt to repeal it as oppressive and sexist. One half opposes homosexual unions because it elevates immoral and unnatural behavior to the sacred status of marriage; the other half supports it as an extension of civil rights. One half reviles Mr. Obama's socialist agenda, viewing it as the destruction of capitalism and our constitutional government; the other half embraces it as the culmination of social justice and economic equality. One half reveres America's heroes - Christopher Columbus, George Washington, James Madison, Davy Crockett - and its glorious history; the other half is ashamed of its past, seeing it as characterized by racism, imperialism and chauvinism.

    Ultimately, a country is not simply its geographical borders with the people inside of it. It is something more - and deeper. A nation must share a common heritage, language, culture, faith and myths. Once upon a time, Americans celebrated the same heroes, sang the same patriotic songs, read the same history and literature, and gloried in its exceptional nature: a city upon a hill, with liberty and freedom for all. It was understood that, for all of our different ethnic and religious backgrounds, America is a product of English and Christian civilization. Those days are long gone.

    Instead, we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic - unlike an empire - is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

    In confronting Obamacare, state sovereignty, states' rights and state nullification of federal laws are being asserted. This is what happened in the 1830s and 1840s. They are the signs of growing political anarchy and social frustration - people can only be pushed so far. Mr. Obama's drive for a socialist super-state threatens America's very existence. As Jefferson warned about slavery, it is time we start ringing the "fire bell in the night."

    "Things fall apart; the center cannot hold," wrote William Butler Yeats. "Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."

    Conservatives will not be passive in this onslaught on all our core values. Mr. Obama's true legacy may be that he divides us deeper than ever before - unless he abandons his revolutionary project.

    Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of the "Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.

  2. #2
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Mr. Obama has achieved what his liberal predecessors - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, Bill Clinton - could only dream of: nationalized health care. Obamacare signifies the government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It has dealt a mortal blow to traditional America. We are now a European-style socialist welfare state. The inevitable permanent tax hikes, massive public bureaucracy and liberal ruling elites will stifle competition and initiative.
    IF protesting doesn't start IN EARNEST here and now, we're doomed.
    Libertatem Prius!





  3. #3
    Super Moderator Malsua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    7,926
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 16 Times in 16 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Increasingly, we no longer just disagree but we despise each other.


    That pretty much sums it up.


    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
    -- Theodore Roosevelt


  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    huh? so you are saying Catholics are why America is going to collapse? that makes little to no sense, perhaps you can explain a bit more.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    ok that makes more sense, thanks!

  6. #6
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    I agree with the breaking of the bubble.
    Libertatem Prius!





  7. #7
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Soon.
    Libertatem Prius!





  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    At 35 years old will I actually get to retire with Corps of Engineers or is the whole dang thing going to collapse?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    I agree with rough times are in the future. I have put alot of work into myself and to see it all get swept away because of half the country doesn't have any ability just pisses me off. On the other hand like others that I have known that were too attached to their company and title have lost all identity and I guess I just need to be ready for anything.

  10. #10
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    23,914
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGEUSAF View Post
    At 35 years old will I actually get to retire with Corps of Engineers or is the whole dang thing going to collapse?
    That's the million dollar question...

    I strongly suspect that with the way things are going we could have as few as 5 years, if that, and as many as 10 years if we are lucky.

    I really hope both are wrong and we have many prosperous centuries ahead of us.

  11. #11
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    I've always been prone to believe that the naysayers were jumping through their asses for nothing.

    In other words, we have this or that conspiracy theory that says "the world will end" or "the US will collapse" or something like this.

    Over time all of these theories have proven wrong.

    However... if you step back you will see that the old Soviet Union FELL in the space of weeks. In reality it took from about 1985 through 1991 to completely dissolve, but the impetus for it's fall too the form of non-liquidity in the market, the loss of income from oil and eventual bankruptcy.

    The United States, no where near the type of empire the Soviets sought to build, is well on the same route to bankruptcy. We're about three years into a recession if I read my numbers right and that's about half as much time as it took the Soviets to dissolve.

    Do I think the US will collapse?

    I don't think we're going to completely fall apart. We have too many right thinking (and Right Thinking) people here to allow it. However, bankruptcy is a possibility, and our government might find itself dissolved if some of the leaders taking advantage of the People of America...

    So... we COULD... will we? That remains the question.
    Libertatem Prius!





  12. #12
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    23,914
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    While listening to NRA News this evening, Cam Edwards (the host) was reading from a blog entry brought to his attention on The George Lucas Educational Foundation's Edutopia site by a Mrs. Elena Aguilar. This blog entry perfectly proves Jeff Kuhner's point, especially the large block of text I highlighted.

    Have some insight into "the other side"...

    How to Engage Young Students in Historical Thinking
    By Elena Aguilar
    4/8/10

    Last week over breakfast, my six-year-old son declared, "George Washington was a good president."

    "Why do you say that?" I asked.

    "Because he freed us from England," he said.

    "Some people think he was good, others disagree," I said.

    "My teacher thinks he was good," my kindergartner responded.

    I then explained to my son that I thought he'd done some things that weren't fair. "George Washington owned slaves and one of the reasons he wanted to be free from England was because he wanted to be even richer than he already was," I told him.

    My son had no comment and resumed eating his granola. We're pretty anti-slavery in our house, so I imagine he was contemplating that contradiction.

    I controlled the tirade that threatened to erupt; I am quiet about my many pedagogical disagreements with my son's teacher. I'm making a big effort to embrace the public schools in the district that I've worked in for 15 years as I send my only child into its classrooms.

    The Old Approach

    My son's class has been learning about George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for over two weeks -- and the unit is not yet finished. They cut out construction paper faces of Washington and glued on cotton balls for wigs; they memorized lyrics to a song which stated that "Lincoln freed the slaves;" they stapled together paper hats "like the patriots wore" and listened to stories about Revolutionary War battles.

    The George Washington comment had me boiling for two reasons:

    First, this is not the way to teach history. This approach -- an uncritical, history-as-true-fact, spoon-fed-hero-worshipping of rich white men and the unquestioned glorification of those who have always had power -- is not acceptable for my kid or any kid.

    Secondly, I'm shocked by any teacher's lack of cultural competence. I can't imagine what one might think as they look at students' faces, such as those of my son's classmates (some of whom are African American or recent immigrants), and declare, "George Washington freed us from England." He sure didn't free my people who immigrated in the twentieth century, and he sure didn't free my husband's ancestors who were brought to this country in shackles.

    Necessary Standards for Teaching History

    In California history classes, along side the content standards, there is a set of standards for teaching historical analysis skills -- starting in kindergarten.

    If our schools are going to be successful in preparing our young people to actively participate in a democracy then we need to go far beyond just teaching the content standards in history. Going deeper means this:

    Students understand that history is a construction.

    This means that students recognize that "there are no truths, only stories," as the Native American poet, Simon Ortiz, says. Students also understand that the history that has been written down is a story told by the victors, the conquerors, those with power who constitute a tiny segment of the population, and that it is a story told often to justify their own power.

    Students know how to deconstruct history and re-write it. ()

    This means that children learn how to be historians. They can analyze primary sources and develop their own interpretations. They can identify bias in other people's interpretations and consider how privilege and status impact the way events are recorded. They also look for and listen for stories that have not been told, and they see the value of bringing those stories to light.

    Students know their own histories.

    A kindergartner should be learning about his own family history before learning about George Washington. He should first learn about how the past affects the present, about the people he comes from, and about the struggles and accomplishments of his ancestors. Maybe such a sequence of instruction would result in more kids enjoying history -- in fact, that should be another standard.

    Students enjoy studying history and recognize the value in doing so.

    This means that students understand that in order for us to better our world, to fix some of the terrible injustices and perhaps even save our planet, they need to understand the past. They need to understand how we got to where we are and they need to recognize their own power to be able to change the situation. History is the ideal curriculum to allow this to happen, but only if students enjoy the material and see how it can be a tool for empowerment.

    A New Approach

    I have no problem with kindergartners being taught about George Washington, as long as they are being asked to think critically and consider multiple perspectives, and as long as they are also learning about other people.

    Here's what I mean: A teacher could introduce the study of American presidents by reading a picture book that presented an alternate perspective on Washington, perhaps told from the point of view of one of Washington's three-hundred slaves. She could have students consider what makes a hero or what makes someone worthy of respect, asking them to evaluate Washington's actions.

    Even when instructing our youngest students, we communicate beliefs and values about people and power. All teachers should be clear about what beliefs they are communicating and should question their appropriateness.

    Here are a few resources to think through a framework for teaching history:


    What is your philosophy for teaching history? What standards do you think should be added?
    I suspect I would be correct in saying a large majority, if not all, leftists would agree with this piece.

    How can we exist as a united country with people so completely and diametrically opposed?

    I don't think we can...

  13. #13
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    This is a maggot. The man who wrote that crap is sifting through shit and making more shit.

    People like that are misinformed, unintelligent losers who want to re-write history. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Let them at our children and we wind up in a country full of fucking idiots.

    Pardon my language. I've tried very hard to tone it down, but this is the sort of SHIT that causes MY blood to BOIL.

    Rich White men... hero worship.

    If that asswipe were in front of me right now, I'd bitch slap him.
    Libertatem Prius!





  14. #14
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    23,914
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Her...

  15. #15
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck View Post
    Her...
    Her?

    Who knew. You can't tell these days with Liberals what gender they are by their names.
    Libertatem Prius!





  16. #16
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    23,914
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Study: Obama Skipping Red States in Favor of Dem Strongholds, Foreign Countries
    March 30, 2010

    President Obama's spending a lot of time flying over "flyover country."

    According to a study from the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute, the president has spoken to audiences in just seven of the 22 states he lost in the 2008 election.

    In fact, he's visited more foreign countries than he has "red states" -- and he's delivered eight times the number of speeches in states he won than in states John McCain won.

    "He's made it to Hawaii. He's made it to California several times," said Eric Ostermeir, the research associate who conducted the study. "There's just a lot of states he's missing in between."

    Ostermeier got to looking at the state-by-state breakdown while he was in the middle of a separate review of Obama's speeches.

    For the latest report, he broke down the locations of the 531 "verbal statements" the president has made since his inauguration 14 months ago. They include all addresses, speeches and remarks over the course of his presidency.

    As is common with most presidents, the bulk of those remarks were delivered in Washington, D.C. But whenever the president traveled outside the Beltway, he typically made a beeline to the blue states.

    According to the study:

    -- Obama delivered 116 statements in states he won in 2008.

    -- He delivered 63 statements in foreign countries.

    -- He delivered 15 statements in states he lost in 2008.

    Ostermeier said the fact that Washington is surrounded by states the president won can account for part of the disparity, as can the fact that the states Obama won have twice as many people in them.

    But he said those factors don't tell the whole story. Upon closer inspection, Ostermeier found swing states -- most of which Obama won -- got a "disproportionate" amount of the president's attention.

    "It's holding on to those purple states that he could lose," Ostermeier said.

    The study showed Obama has spoken to audiences in 80 percent of the 28 states he won. The latest such visit was Tuesday in Virginia, where Obama signed a package of changes to the health care reform law signed earlier this month. The president visited Iowa, another state he turned blue in 2008, last week to tout the health care law.

    The McCain states Obama has visited are: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana and Texas.

    He has not spoken in: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

  17. #17
    Creepy Ass Cracka & Site Owner Ryan Ruck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    23,914
    Thanks
    31
    Thanked 57 Times in 56 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    The Coming Civil War In America
    January 5, 2009

    America has evolved into two broad cultures. This was observed in the 1950s by sociologists like C. Wright Mills and David Riesman. In recent years the gap between the two cultures has intensified. The two cultures might be called traditional and other-directed. I included in traditional the intermediate type that Riesman discusses, inner-directed, in part because it is difficult to distinguish between other-directed people with goals or achievement orientation that David McClelland discusses in his book, written in the 1960s, the Achieving Society, and people for whom inner-direction and achievement orientation predominate. It may be impossible to distinguish the types with sufficient specificity. Also, the discussion has been muddled by the eschatological or teleological character of much twentieth century social science. Marx reinvented messianism for the other-directed mass, and social scientists have been prone to inject a degree of Marxist mysticism into almost all of their work. That is, they assume that other-direction involves evolution or "progress" beyond inner direction or tradition or that the propagandistic term "progressive" is more than vacuous of meaning.

    The reassertion of religious values in America, particularly in the states that were christened "red" in the millennial election, is evidence of a serious breach in the values of the two Americas. This was not new in 2000, because by the 1950s Riesman had already noted that urban, higher income Americans had devolved from the inner direction or goal orient of the nineteenth century into a group-concerned "other direction" that in many ways was similar to the tribal traditionalism of primitive cultures but in other ways was different. It was different because it was dependent upon mass media and culture to define its values. However, both Riesman and Mills fixated on urban mass culture and did not explore the differences between rural Americans and the urban ones whom they emphasized.

    It took Americans about two generations, between 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected and 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected to reject the New Deal policies that were associated with the mass media and other-directed trends. However, this rejection was far from consistent. In the "blue states" most people disliked Reagan, and disliked the Republican ascendancy between 1980 and 2006. The balance was almost equal, with the margin of difference depending on the ebb and flow of the economy and incumbents' corruption.

    The differences between the two cultures, the inner and other directed intensified because the other-directed resented their displacement. The other-directed never resolved the key social problems that their experts claimed qualified to resolve. Issues concerning poverty, the economy, international relations, urban planning, even warfare (as represented by the tragi-comic Robert McNamara) were hardly resolved by the other-directed or "liberal" media-based elites. Indeed, the more they tried, the worse the problems seemed to become. It is even arguable that the Great Depression, the bugaboo of the other-directed "liberal" culture, was in fact a product of that culture's inability to grasp fundamental monetary issues and its groupthink-based emphasis on governmental solutions and high taxes (during the FDR administration and later) that blocked normal economic recovery.

    In short, the other-directed culture has been short-sighted, narrow minded and arrogant. At the same time, many Americans have rejected this other-directed culture in favor of a rediscovery of traditional and religious values. This rediscovery is resented by the other-directed, who sense that it represents a rejection of the fundamental structure of their culture. They should not be surprised, however, because their culture has not proven to produce results. Nor should they be surprised that many Americans continue to have faith.

    C. Wright Mills, a left-wing sociologist, identified the role of media in the inculcation of mass psychology in what is now called the blue states back in 1956 in his book The Power Elite. Mills identifies mass communication as the source of elite power. Therefore, the evolution of evangelical television broadcasts, cable television, the Internet, and other alternative communication methods would seem to have presented the other-directed power elite with a threat to its control. These technological changes had the unpredictable effect of enhancing traditional values and culture in the red states and among those who are still inner-directed or traditional in value orientation and so able to think for themselves.

    Mills writes of a modern mass media, which is now a thing of the past. Media is no longer centrally controlled, and it is becoming less so. The newspapers and broadcast television stations of the 1950s are now being replaced by Internet bloggers, cable and Internet-based television stations that are not centrally controlled and so facilitate a sharing or equalization of culture. Thus, the modern tendency toward other-direction is thwarted by the sheer number of choices of information outlets. This in turn facilitates reliance on traditional values rather than the babel of alternative information sources as a basis. Information overload permits tradition to reassert itself, and the Godly values of traditional America have benefited.

    There is a reversal of the trend that Mills described in 1956:

    "there is a movement from widely scattered little powers to concentrated powers and the attempt at monopoly control from the powerful centers, which, being partially hidden, are centers of manipulation as well as authority. The small shop serving the neighborhood is replaced by the anonymity of the national corporation; mas advertisement replaces the personal influence of opinion between merchant and customer. The political leader hooks up his speech to a national network...in the mass society of media markets, competition if any goes on between the manipulators with their mass media on the one hand, and the people receiving their propaganda on the other. Under such conditions, it is not surprising that there should arise a conception of public opinion as a mere reaction--we cannot say 'response' to the content of mass media. In this view, the public is merely the collectivity of individuals each rather passively exposed to the mass media and rather helplessly opened up to the suggestions and manipulations that flow from these media. The fact of manipulation from centralized points of control constitutes, as it were, an expropriation of the old multitude of little opinion producers and consumers operating in a free and balanced market."

    Riesman emphasizes that other-directedness, which he considers to be characteristic of the modern world, is predominantly associated with urban professionals.

    Neither Mills nor Riesman (nor anyone else of the 1950s) could have anticipated the evolution of telecommunication methods that dissolve central dominance of the power elite, i.e., the marketers of other-directedness and "liberal" ideology. This has led to the unthinkable: a reassertion of individualism and traditional belief in the heartland of America.

    This is not to say that the urban, other-directed culture has disappeared. Rather, that it no longer predominates to the degree it once did, even with the aid of left-dominated universities and an education system that sees its role as the inculcation of ideology in the form of "social justice learning" and political correctness. Not only are many Americans beginning to question the value of public education and to engage in home schooling, but also are questioning the cultural hegemony of universities and supposed experts: cancer experts who cannot cure cancer; economics experts who bungle the economy; psychological experts who cannot cure mental illness or who define it and redefine it in absurd ways; and sociological experts who claim to cure poverty but whose cures precede massive drug addiction, intensification of segregated northern cities and entrenched poverty.

    The reaction of the "liberal" other-directed culture has been to intensify its ideological and cultural commitment to "liberal" solutions and other-directedness. The hostitility toward George W. Bush and Sarah Palin exemplify the intensification of anger and hostility toward those who look to tradition, to inner direction and specifically American values. This hostility is likely to increase as information sources continue to fragment. America is becoming a multi-cultural nation, and the cultures are at loggerheads. The conflict will become more overt.

  18. #18
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Neither Mills nor Riesman (nor anyone else of the 1950s) could have anticipated the evolution of telecommunication methods that dissolve central dominance of the power elite, i.e., the marketers of other-directedness and "liberal" ideology. This has led to the unthinkable: a reassertion of individualism and traditional belief in the heartland of America.
    TOTALLY untrue.

    A LOT of people foresaw the changes in telecommunications coming. Science fiction people for one. DARPA saw it. Many of us expected it.
    Libertatem Prius!





  19. #19
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    Oh... about that Civil War thing. Yeah, maybe.

    FRAC 'EM ALL!
    Libertatem Prius!





  20. #20
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,547
    Thanks
    73
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: Will America Break Up?

    I've been.... umm... speculating lately on some things.

    The civil war thing is included in that, and I probably haven't been very clear, but I'm gonig to say it now.

    The Socialists who live in America WANT it to happen, they are TRYING to foment it and force the hand of the Right and continue to demonize the Right Wing in an effort to just piss them off even more.

    The current administration is NOT helping, and whether they are complicit or not remains to be seen. I think Obama is a DUPE for these people and there are indeed people in his administration that wants it to occur.

    If it happens, it simply puts us in a final, weakened position for an invasion or limited nuclear attack.

    The US IS in trouble and it's because people can't take a breath and back up a second and look what is going on and who is doing it.

    Remove the offenders from office and things will settle.

    Russia will have to back off. China will. Amadamnnutjob and Hugoblowhard will STFU finally...

    However, if not and these leftist continue pushing American's buttons... we will fall apart rapidly in an attempt to reform our government.
    Libertatem Prius!





Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •