America - A land of contradictions

[fluffybiscuits]

The US often purports itself to be a land of the free and the liberal but just to what extent does this freedom go to or how far does it stretch. There is a distinct air of contradiction in what a lot of America claims that is stands for and this stretches from the downright mistruth and misinformation to becoming like those whom they have come to villify to the world through their actions abroad. Free speech is protected by the ammendments in their consitution yet things like SOPA or CISPA all seek to undermine that freedom of speech by hitting the little man should he happen to somehow "undermine" the multinational while the Patriot Act means that most communications can be read in the pursuit of terrorism. While claiming that they are the upholders of freedom and liberty as anyone who has seen Brian De Palma's marvellous film "Redacted" or the pictures frm Abu Gharib or Guantanamo Bay know this is anything but the truth, the corridors of power belong but to a very few small select group of men. The freedom of information runs one way, only that in favour of the American government and should anyone cross them (Bradley Manning) then hell hath no furey like the CIA. One of the most galling aspect though is the very likeness to which some of these people have become of the people they intend to villify. Christian fundamentalists are intent on suppressing women, gays and other minorities yet claim that Muslims or those Al-Kihitab (people of the one book) are doing the same yet they fall under the same umbrella.

Europe is by no means a golden boy , far from it but do some of us here in Euope not look on bemused at America with its foreign policies and attitudes? This is not a criticism of the American people but those elected. Is the American nation a land of contradictions?

[Count Bobulescu]

Of course it’s a land of contradictions. Always was, and probably always will be. It’s by far and away the most racially and ethnically diverse country in the world, much more so than the UK which is mostly fed by Commonwealth countries. 315 million people and growing at the rate of more than one million a year spread over an area larger than Europe minus Russia that’s an Ireland every four years. California alone has the 7th largest economy in the world. The economy of New York is about the same size as that of Australia. India, China, and many other countries are also full of contradictions. World would be dull without contradictions.

Think about this, India and China have had millions of people for many hundreds if not thousands of years. At the time of the US Civil War 150 years ago the population was less than 30 million. Twenty years before that, people were accused of engaging in cannibalism in an effort to survive while trying to travel from coast to coast. Google The Donner Party. Not too difficult to get from Dublin to Galway 170 years ago

[Shaadi]

Of course it’s a land of contradictions. Always was, and probably always will be. It’s by far and away the most racially and ethnically diverse country in the world, much more so than the UK which is mostly fed by Commonwealth countries. 315 million people and growing at the rate of more than one million a year spread over an area larger than Europe minus Russia that’s an Ireland every four years. California alone has the 7th largest economy in the world. The economy of New York is about the same size as that of Australia. India, China, and many other countries are also full of contradictions. World would be dull without contradictions.

Think about this, India and China have had millions of people for many hundreds if not thousands of years. At the time of the US Civil War 150 years ago the population was less than 30 million. Twenty years before that, people were accused of engaging in cannibalism in an effort to survive while trying to travel from coast to coast. Google The Donner Party. Not too difficult to get from Dublin to Galway 170 years ago

I totally get it that an outsider can't understand the mindset of Americans. What I find fascinating about the place is the lack of diversity on the political scene. How can two parties playing a never ending game of musical chairs be considered fit to represent the interests of all the people in such a vast and complex country? Where's the resistance to this Govt by a 2 party system?

[gfmurphy101]

The land of the free, is more of an empire than a country, contrast it with empires of old, ask some questions? why do so many americans feel the need to hang their national flag on their front porch, do other nations act similarly/otherwise! where have you witnessed such behaviour before? Similarly , do school children in the USA pledge allegience to the flag first thing every morning, why? where did this happen before?
The USA is an empire, and one is free to do what one wants as long as it does'nt upset the emperor or his bunch of elites! But empires have a nasty habit of dis-integrating, and they nearly always break on pressure from within!!!

[Count Bobulescu]

I totally get it that an outsider can't understand the mindset of Americans. What I find fascinating about the place is the lack of diversity on the political scene. How can two parties playing a never ending game of musical chairs be considered fit to represent the interests of all the people in such a vast and complex country? Where's the resistance to this Govt by a 2 party system?

Most Americans, me included, I have dual, are with you that the 2 party system is broken. Congress’ favorability ratings are currently at an all time low, around 9%.When I first arrived here I used ridicule the US system by pointing out that it was impossible for two parties to adequately represent such diverse views, and point out that ethnically homogeneous little Ireland had 5-10 political parties at any given time.

Americans would counter that because the US Constitution deliberately makes changes very difficult to achieve the US needs strong Government, and that multiple parties would lead to what they pejoratively describe as the “Balkanization” of politics. I still don’t like it, but I have come to see some merit in that position over the years.

I would guess that few countries could accommodate a population increase of 1000% over 150 years and remain cohesive. Granted, in order to achieve that cohesiveness there is a certain dumbing down of aspects of the social contract to the lowest common denominator, but that beats the hell out of civil war. As Winston Churchill observed, Americans can be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.

There is an attempt this election cycle to have the first ever internet nominated Prez candidate. It has gotten some publicity, but so far it’s hard to gauge if it will have much impact. It's widely believed that third party candidates Ross Perot 1992 (19%) and Ralph Nader 2000 (5%) caused Bill Clinton and George Bush to be elected. Check out Americans Elect.

http://www.americanselect.org/

[Mr Aphorisms]

Yes, it really is the most hypocritical country that has ever existed and will exist. While they have produced, in my opinion, the best form of government that has ever existed and a marvelous Bill of Rights and Constitution, not to mention that almost poetic Declaration of Independence, America has been from its very foundations a country based on hypocrisy.

But when you listen to many anti-war, 9/11 truther's, even left wingers who say that America has turned away from the Founders' message, it is simply erroneous to say that. America was created to be an empire. You can read Jefferson's writings or any other Founding Father and they all say they same thing: America must basically expand if it is to fulfill its full potential, regardless of who or what gets in its way as we saw with the Mexicans and most cruelly, the Native Americans. We also see it with the conquest of the Philippines, Guam, etc. Or, if they had economic treaties, say in Cuba, making it almost a puppet state for U.S corporations, mainly United Fruit. This was all before 1913, when America was supposedly hijacked by foreign bankers. Go from WW2 to now, America has been following the exact same message as the Founding Fathers and all the Presidents since Washington. You can read quotes from Senators, Congressmen or Presidents about how America needs to expand by force in the world so other countries can buy their surplus products. What is the difference in U.S foreign policy from Andrew Jackson invading Florida to George Bush invading Iraq? For "civilization" was the excuse back then. Now it is to bring "democracy".

Even if we look at the Patriot Act and other things such as the NDAA, all the Libertarians and Constitutional scholars scream at how their government has turned away from the magnificence of Washington and Jefferson. They are right to be annoyed and thankfully there are people like them trying to save freedom. But the NDAA and Patriot Act types of law are already cemented in American history. A couple of months after that brilliant Constitution was written, the Alien and Sedition Act came into place with thousands fleeing the states out of fear and many people being imprisoned with no trial at all. The egalitarian Thomas Jefferson and a few others campaigned against this. But when Thomas became President, he to used some of the still existing powers to imprison his political opponents. And while the title mentions hypocrisy, no man has been at the forefront of leading hypocrisy then Thomas Jefferson was.

Woodrow Wilson used similar laws during WW1 and installed a mad sense of jingoism in America by propaganda that caused chaos to ordinary citizens who were attacked by others for not standing for the National Anthem, etc. Again, these types of things are wholly consistent with U.S domestic policy. There was no take over by bankers or what not, America was built as an expansionist Empire. If they had their way for example, the yanks would have taken over Canada, the simple reason that they didn't was because of England. America only recognized Canada as a country after WW1.

Yes, it really is a hypocritical country. Good OP. Where I would differ is that I hold the American populations stupidity and ignorance as tantamount as their governments malign crimes. When I say anti-American, I do now mean it in every sense. America has committed far too many crimes, supported far too many dictators and supplied far too many death squads for me to hold the line that "oh, it's a pity they have a bad government. Great people." They're not great people, they openly swallow every piece of propaganda that they are spoon fed and I have no sympathy towards them at all. I am not saying they deserve to be attacked or anything like that. I am wholly against violence. But I don't feel any sympathy if something happens to their marines all over the world, for example. Anyone who now joins the U.S military must be either absolutely insane or extremely jingoistic.

[C. Flower]

Yes, it really is the most hypocritical country that has ever existed and will exist. While they have produced, in my opinion, the best form of government that has ever existed and a marvelous Bill of Rights and Constitution, not to mention that almost poetic Declaration of Independence, America has been from its very foundations a country based on hypocrisy.

But when you listen to many anti-war, 9/11 truther's, even left wingers who say that America has turned away from the Founders' message, it is simply erroneous to say that. America was created to be an empire. You can read Jefferson's writings or any other Founding Father and they all say they same thing: America must basically expand if it is to fulfill its full potential, regardless of who or what gets in its way as we saw with the Mexicans and most cruelly, the Native Americans. We also see it with the conquest of the Philippines, Guam, etc. Or, if they had economic treaties, say in Cuba, making it almost a puppet state for U.S corporations, mainly United Fruit. This was all before 1913, when America was supposedly hijacked by foreign bankers. Go from WW2 to now, America has been following the exact same message as the Founding Fathers and all the Presidents since Washington. You can read quotes from Senators, Congressmen or Presidents about how America needs to expand by force in the world so other countries can buy their surplus products. What is the difference in U.S foreign policy from Andrew Jackson invading Florida to George Bush invading Iraq? For "civilization" was the excuse back then. Now it is to bring "democracy".

Even if we look at the Patriot Act and other things such as the NDAA, all the Libertarians and Constitutional scholars scream at how their government has turned away from the magnificence of Washington and Jefferson. They are right to be annoyed and thankfully there are people like them trying to save freedom. But the NDAA and Patriot Act types of law are already cemented in American history. A couple of months after that brilliant Constitution was written, the Alien and Sedition Act came into place with thousands fleeing the states out of fear and many people being imprisoned with no trial at all. The egalitarian Thomas Jefferson and a few others campaigned against this. But when Thomas became President, he to used some of the still existing powers to imprison his political opponents. And while the title mentions hypocrisy, no man has been at the forefront of leading hypocrisy then Thomas Jefferson was.

Woodrow Wilson used similar laws during WW1 and installed a mad sense of jingoism in America by propaganda that caused chaos to ordinary citizens who were attacked by others for not standing for the National Anthem, etc. Again, these types of things are wholly consistent with U.S domestic policy. There was no take over by bankers or what not, America was built as an expansionist Empire. If they had their way for example, the yanks would have taken over Canada, the simple reason that they didn't was because of England. America only recognized Canada as a country after WW1.

Yes, it really is a hypocritical country. Good OP. Where I would differ is that I hold the American populations stupidity and ignorance as tantamount as their governments malign crimes. When I say anti-American, I do now mean it in every sense. America has committed far too many crimes, supported far too many dictators and supplied far too many death squads for me to hold the line that "oh, it's a pity they have a bad government. Great people." They're not great people, they openly swallow every piece of propaganda that they are spoon fed and I have no sympathy towards them at all. I am not saying they deserve to be attacked or anything like that. I am wholly against violence. But I don't feel any sympathy if something happens to their marines all over the world, for example. Anyone who now joins the U.S military must be either absolutely insane or extremely jingoistic.

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Aphorisms.

To blame the government / elite, or the people, or both, is a conundrum that we face here too. It does take two to tango. A risen people is different. Countries with peoples who have fought their own corner are different. I would include France, Haiti and Greece as some of the countries with people who still know what it is to act for themselves.

[Mr Aphorisms]

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Aphorisms.

To blame the government / elite, or the people, or both, is a conundrum that we face here too. It does take two to tango. A risen people is different. Countries with peoples who have fought their own corner are different. I would include France, Haiti and Greece as some of the countries with people who still know what it is to act for themselves.

Thanks for the welcome.

I have only recently took strong aversion to the American population. It is not the same as we Irish who let our corrupt politicians get an extra 20,000 grand in their bank account, help out their mates with nepotism or impose austerity. They are all bad things but not shenanigans that are killing innocent people or starving people to death. So, in a way, our passive nature or, you could say, Hegel and rationality, that whatever happens, happens and that it is mean't to be this way. A slight bit of hyperbole, but I can think of no other excuse for it with our populace.

But with the yanks, there is no excuses. They have inflicted far too much on the world for me now to hold the view that "it's just their government, not them." What is it going to take for the American populace to wake up that their government is not spreading democracy worldwide at all. On the contrary, it has spread tyranny. It has been condemned by the world court for their crimes in Nicaragua. Ho Chi Minh bent over backwards to tell the Americans what that war was about. Bin Laden, in nearly every statement(I am not saying he was right or a good guy) he made, tried to tell them what the war is about. And yet, they bought their government's lies of, the Nicaraguans are going to invade America, the Vietnam war is about democracy and stopping communism from spreading and Bin Laden hates our freedoms and our democracy.

I don't want to go on a huge rant, but those three examples are suffice. The Americans follow their government like sheep. How many do you think have honestly sat down and read what Bin Laden said? Even if you think that he really did hate freedom and democracy, fair enough. But how many Americans do you think sat down and read a FATWA or anything? Very, very few I imagine. If Bill O'Reilly says they hate me because I'm fat and watch the X Factor, then that's good enough for me.

Ronald Reagan is still held as the acme of fiscal conservatism and is regarded as a hero. That sums it all up. Who do the left in America admire? Two mad men. JFK and Bill Clinton, the latter who should be brought before a war crimes tribunal for his actions in Iraq, East Timor, Turkey and Columbia.

I can't post links yet, but if you get a chance, google "Bill Maher Mississippi". That's what you're up against. This has nothing to do with intelligence or anything. It is not rocket science to understand that overthrowing democracies, funding tyrannies and starving children to death through sanctions is wrong.

So, when I say anti-American, I mean it in every sense. I'm not talking about every American when I say it. I am on about the people who believe America can do no wrong and that it is a great country. From what I have seen and what I have read and judging from the people who vote in these vicious Presidents and parties, the majority of Americans believe that they are a great country. As for the apathetic in America who don't even know who Joe Biden is. I do not care, they are as guilty as the next guy. I am sure not every Waffen SS soildier was a scumbag or every Wehrmacht solider was a scumbag, however, we don't differentiate with Germans with WW2, do we? And I do hold American crimes right up there with the Nazi's. Even the C.I.A admits that what happened in East Timor was right up there with Stalin and the Gulags and Hitler. And American helped that slaughter since 1965 when Suharto took over Indonesia.

P.S I am not left wing. That's another thing that gets thrown at you: If you're against America, you must be a communist!

[Count Bobulescu]

The land of the free, is more of an empire than a country, contrast it with empires of old, ask some questions? why do so many americans feel the need to hang their national flag on their front porch, do other nations act similarly/otherwise! where have you witnessed such behaviour before? Similarly , do school children in the USA pledge allegience to the flag first thing every morning, why? where did this happen before?
The USA is an empire, and one is free to do what one wants as long as it does'nt upset the emperor or his bunch of elites! But empires have a nasty habit of dis-integrating, and they nearly always break on pressure from within!!!

Gf, I guess you’ve never driven across the border from France into Germany, Italy, Switerland or Spain? The US flag thing is primarily a blue collar phenom, and the practice varies widely by local tradition. Rural areas do it more than urban. At a guess, I’d say 2-5% of households do it.

[Count Bobulescu]

Yes, it really is the most hypocritical country that has ever existed and will exist. While they have produced, in my opinion, the best form of government that has ever existed and a marvelous Bill of Rights and Constitution, not to mention that almost poetic Declaration of Independence, America has been from its very foundations a country based on hypocrisy.

But when you listen to many anti-war, 9/11 truther's, even left wingers who say that America has turned away from the Founders' message, it is simply erroneous to say that. America was created to be an empire. You can read Jefferson's writings or any other Founding Father and they all say they same thing: America must basically expand if it is to fulfill its full potential, regardless of who or what gets in its way as we saw with the Mexicans and most cruelly, the Native Americans. We also see it with the conquest of the Philippines, Guam, etc. Or, if they had economic treaties, say in Cuba, making it almost a puppet state for U.S corporations, mainly United Fruit. This was all before 1913, when America was supposedly hijacked by foreign bankers. Go from WW2 to now, America has been following the exact same message as the Founding Fathers and all the Presidents since Washington. You can read quotes from Senators, Congressmen or Presidents about how America needs to expand by force in the world so other countries can buy their surplus products. What is the difference in U.S foreign policy from Andrew Jackson invading Florida to George Bush invading Iraq? For "civilization" was the excuse back then. Now it is to bring "democracy".

Even if we look at the Patriot Act and other things such as the NDAA, all the Libertarians and Constitutional scholars scream at how their government has turned away from the magnificence of Washington and Jefferson. They are right to be annoyed and thankfully there are people like them trying to save freedom. But the NDAA and Patriot Act types of law are already cemented in American history. A couple of months after that brilliant Constitution was written, the Alien and Sedition Act came into place with thousands fleeing the states out of fear and many people being imprisoned with no trial at all. The egalitarian Thomas Jefferson and a few others campaigned against this. But when Thomas became President, he to used some of the still existing powers to imprison his political opponents. And while the title mentions hypocrisy, no man has been at the forefront of leading hypocrisy then Thomas Jefferson was.

Woodrow Wilson used similar laws during WW1 and installed a mad sense of jingoism in America by propaganda that caused chaos to ordinary citizens who were attacked by others for not standing for the National Anthem, etc. Again, these types of things are wholly consistent with U.S domestic policy. There was no take over by bankers or what not, America was built as an expansionist Empire. If they had their way for example, the yanks would have taken over Canada, the simple reason that they didn't was because of England. America only recognized Canada as a country after WW1.

Yes, it really is a hypocritical country. Good OP. Where I would differ is that I hold the American populations stupidity and ignorance as tantamount as their governments malign crimes. When I say anti-American, I do now mean it in every sense. America has committed far too many crimes, supported far too many dictators and supplied far too many death squads for me to hold the line that "oh, it's a pity they have a bad government. Great people." They're not great people, they openly swallow every piece of propaganda that they are spoon fed and I have no sympathy towards them at all. I am not saying they deserve to be attacked or anything like that. I am wholly against violence. But I don't feel any sympathy if something happens to their marines all over the world, for example. Anyone who now joins the U.S military must be either absolutely insane or extremely jingoistic.

After reading your first post I was skeptical about treating you seriously, but was willing to do it. After reading your second post, not so much.

Contradictions do not hypocrisy make. You’re just ranting.

I’m getting tired or repeating the saying that everyone every one is entitled to their own opinion, and no-one is entitled to their own facts, coined by the much respected Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. You have a lot of opinion and some claims of fact in that first post. Since you can’t yet post any links to support your opinions I’ll confine my self to your claims of fact.

You say that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers all say the same thing. Hate to disappoint you, but you’re not even remotely close. I’ll direct you to the Federalist Papers, a series of eighty five essays authored by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton aimed at persuading and winning the votes of other founders and states for ratification of the Constitution. As just one example, the Federalist writers opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, I’ll direct you here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers

You say: Y

ou can read quotes from Senators, Congressmen or Presidents about how America needs to expand by force in the world so other countries can buy their surplus products.

Could you give us some examples to support that claim? Or tell us what it is based on
I could go on, but now that I’ve read your second post I’ll wait to see how you respond.

[Mr Aphorisms]

After reading your first post I was skeptical about treating you seriously, but was willing to do it. After reading your second post, not so much.

Contradictions do not hypocrisy make. You’re just ranting.

I’m getting tired or repeating the saying that everyone every one is entitled to their own opinion, and no-one is entitled to their own facts, coined by the much respected Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. You have a lot of opinion and some claims of fact in that first post. Since you can’t yet post any links to support your opinions I’ll confine my self to your claims of fact.

You say that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers all say the same thing. Hate to disappoint you, but you’re not even remotely close. I’ll direct you to the Federalist Papers, a series of eighty five essays authored by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton aimed at persuading and winning the votes of other founders and states for ratification of the Constitution. As just one example, the Federalist writers opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, I’ll direct you here.


You say: Y Could you give us some examples to support that claim? Or tell us what it is based on
I could go on, but now that I’ve read your second post I’ll wait to see how you respond.

After reading your first post I was skeptical about treating you seriously, but was willing to do it. After reading your second post, not so much.

And who is Count Bobulescu when he's not on here? I don't give two hoots what you think about me or if I am worthy of your time.

Contradictions do not hypocrisy make. You’re just ranting.

Really? Well, I thought that owning slaves an talking about freedom is an contradiction? I know, it was the thing to do back then. It was perfectly legit for Washington to not want blacks in his army. It was the thing to do, of course.

I am glad that you have only picked out one point on here about the Founders, where I was slightly vague, but my argument stands that they were all essentially the same: America was built as an empire. It was the goals of the Founders. It is what happened as well. There was no "what would the Founders say" when America took land that was not theirs. But again, evidence that the Founders, particularly Washington and Jefferson didn't want America to become an empire? More on that in a second.

’

m getting tired or repeating the saying that everyone every one is entitled to their own opinion, and no-one is entitled to their own facts, coined by the much respected Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

What did I say that wasn't a fact? Care to go through all the points?

Your first gargantuan mistake: "he much respected Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan" Only a pro-American could think he was respected. Respected by who?

Quote from Moynihan:

The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook [with regard to East Timor]. The task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success. [Scott, 1998; Mercury News (San Jose), 9/16/2002; Pacific News Service, 5/20/2002]

He took pleasure it the massacres that happened in East Timor. "Our kind of guy" was Suharto indeed. What did McNamara say about Suharto and his takeover of Indonesia? Something along the lines of our efforts(regarding supporting Suharto) have turned out great? You may respect Moynihan and jingoistic yanks, but anyone with a serious interest in international affairs or with knowledge of the rudiments of the history of East Timor knows that man was a maniac as the quote shows.

You say that Jefferson and the Founding Fathers all say the same thing. Hate to disappoint you, but you’re not even remotely close. I’ll direct you to the Federalist Papers, a series of eighty five essays authored by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton aimed at persuading and winning the votes of other founders and states for ratification of the Constitution. As just one example, the Federalist writers opposed adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, I’ll direct you here.

I was talking about America being an empire that must expand. Go through the 55 men. How many were not bond holding, slave owning, landowning, elitist? Not many.

Could you give us some examples to support that claim? Or tell us what it is based on

You can read Jefferson's writings or any other Founding Father and they all say they same thing: America must basically expand if it is to fulfill its full potential, regardless of who or what gets in its way as we saw with the Mexicans and most cruelly, the Native Americans

I can go into the history of the Native Americans if you want. I mean, what I said there is not even controversial. It is mainstream history. Take Canada for example and the invasion of 1775. No doubt you'll put that down to strategic interests, but America wanted it after they defeated the British as well. And as I said, they only recognized its existence after WW1. Now, if you want to start asking for links and all, I'll be more than happy to some other day, dig out a few books from my shelve and throw them at you. But you posting links to wiki is not really anything. Not that wiki is bad, maybe you should just post the link and give your own opinion.

Then you can take Jefferson "driving the beasts" westward. The beats being the Native Americans. That was all for land and American interests. Or are you privy to some information that I am not?

John Quincy Adams looking back at his own role in American history and what had happened commented "that hapless race of Natives which we are exterminating without mercy and with perfidious cruelty" sums it all up. Fair enough, they weren't exterminated, but a great deal of damage was done. Even jingoistic right wings like Dennis Prager admit America did heavy blows to the native Americans. Today it would be classed as genocide.

Now, what the rest is based on is again, mainstream history. I'll take two examples: The Philippines and Cuba.

After the Peace Treaty was signed with Spain, the U.S bought Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. Now, you do agree that is all to do with being an empire, yes? Do you think if America offered to buy Japan after WW2 they would have been taken seriously? Of course not. But anyway, I'll go on.

Then President McKinley told Ministers he did not want the Philippines, but God had told him, among other things, it would be "cowardly" to give them back to the Spanish. They were "unfit for self government". They need to be "civilized" and be uplifted so that the U.S could "Christianize them". McKinley was telling this to a group ministers and he left it at "and then I went to bed and went to sleep soundly." Remember George Bush told us that God told him to invade Iraq?

In the Senate, Albert Beveridge said in January 9 1901: "The Philippines are ours forever.... we will not renounce our past in the mission of our race."

I am surprised that you are so profoundly shocked by what I said. Have you never heard of Mark Twain and why his work was silenced? Have you never heard of the Anti-Imperialist League from those days?

On Cuba, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. America, of course, later invaded and the Cubans did initially welcome them, hoping they would guarantee Cuban independence.

Later on, the Platt Amendment was passed by Congress in February in 1901 and was incorporated into the U.S Constitution. The amendment gave the U.S the right to intervene to protect its interests. The Platt caused widespread indignation among Cubans and there were a plethora of demonstrations.

General Leonard Wood wrote to the man who Hitler admired because of his fanatical racism, Theo Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no Independence left in Cuba under the Platt Amendment."

After the Cuban occupation, at least 80% of Cuba's exports of minerals were in American hands, mostly in Bethlehem steel. United Fruit moved into Cuba and bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cent an acre.

They're just a few examples and if you have never heard of them, wiki it. It's all there. the McKinley quote can be debated, but other than that, everything I said is mainstream history. But of course, don't expect to see in American school textbooks, Jefferson the racist, Jackson the merchant, slave owning, man who ordered the execution of dissenters from the army and the enemy of the Indians who he took great pleasure in removing from their land as part of the Indian Removal bill.

Or tell us what it is based on

Mainstream history.

I could go on

Before you do, go back to the original quote and go through it and tell me what I said that was wrong, besides not taking out of context that I mean't the Founders were not clones of each other. I don't care about how Madison wanted a well constructed Senate or anything like that. I was on entirely about America becoming an empire.

Please come up to the 20th century, particularly after WW2. One could forgive the Americans for their history as "well, it was a different time during slavery, it was a different time during the Indians", that's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is is that America carries out the exact same principles as it did when the country was created.

but now that I’ve read your second post I’ll wait to see how you respond.

....................... If you're one of these that is going to say "you're wrong, but I am not going to tell you why you're wrong" there is no point in talking. You could have easily went through what I said in a sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph basis, as I did.

[Count Bobulescu]

I think we have yet another refugee from “another place”. At least he is living up to his moniker, even if he is rambling incoherently and pulling specific incidents out of history and trying to use them to mold a general principle for all Americans at all times. Good luck with that.

[Mr Aphorisms]

I think we have yet another refugee from “another place”. At least he is living up to his moniker, even if he is rambling incoherently and pulling specific incidents out of history and trying to use them to mold a general principle for all Americans at all times. Good luck with that.

You ask for examples and I give them to you. You countered nothing at all I said because it is uncontroversial and mainstream history. You took one thing I said out of context and then talked nonsense while ignoring everything else I mentioned. Just as you did now. From the first time you quoted me to this respone. You then mentioned a psychopath and called him "much respected". Get a grip and you might be taken seriously in life before rambling on about your nefarious country.

Ron Paul and others, they're all revisionists. It is as simple as that. When they promulgate that much out of context quote by Jefferson "commerce with other countries, alliance with none" it is ridiculous. Jefferson, as he did, expanded America and drove Indians into the west, later on saying that he would "civilize" them. He also wanted to take Cuba into the Union. Later on, John Quincy Adams said the same as well, that Cuba was basically a fruit on a tree. Eventually, it would fall, and fall into American hands.

That's where that whole fixation on Cuba comes from. It's why that lunatic Kennedy nearly brought the world to nuclear war over his fixation, which the internal documents reveal was a dangerous fixation.

[Count Bobulescu]

Bio of a Psycopath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Patrick_Moynihan

Posthumous Honors

Moynihan was honored posthumously as well.

• In 2004, Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, announced plans to replace Penn Station as the city's railroad hub. Built a block away within the historic landmark James Farley Post Office building, the new station would be named for Moynihan, as he had long proposed the project and worked to secure federal approvals and financing for it.
• In 2005, the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University renamed its Global Affairs Institute as the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs.
• The federal courthouse in New York's Foley Square was named in his honor.

[Mr Aphorisms]

Mad for your wiki, aren't yeah? Tell me though, why did I call him that? Did I call him it for no reason?

As to winning awards? Your point? Suharto was called "our kind of guy" by Bill Clinton. Does that mean he was great? Obama won the Noble Peace prize? See how silly that was?

I see that you are a fanatical American who cannot take any criticism of your country. But please, tell me why I called him a psychopath. A person who goes out of his way to allow the TNI to kill civilians and tear the place asunder is a psychopath. Remember now, your own C.I.A say that the crimes in East Timor were right up there with the Nazi's and Stalin. America supported Suharto from 1965, and another psychopath - for starving 500,000 children, for supporting ethnic cleaning in Turkey - Bill Clinton supported Suharto, even at one point defying Congress after the Dili massacre, right up until East Timor voted for Independence. Do you know that the TNI were openly declaring that they would liquidate the pro-Independence movement and anyone they found who wanted independence and yet still, Bill and your country supported Indonesia?

But tell me, do you think trying to make the U.N incapable of stopping mass murder in an illegal occupation is not the work of a psychopath? Apparently not because he got some grandiose crap named after him later on in life.

I guess Teodor Obiang is a good guy because he received a medal off George Bush?

I'm off to bed now. Goodnight