The Men Who Built America (History Channel Series..lol)

[Phatscotty]

[Symmetry]

I'm guessing you hold the results of multi-culturalism in Europe as a success

Have you ever really left Minnesota, Scotty?

At this point I'm doubtful if he left Youtube.

[Lootifer]

I am really interested in that question (if he has ever travelled outside of the US - barring Canadian ski trips or something equally devoid of actual culture).

[Phatscotty]

interesting, is it not, that this is the exact same tactic Woodruff tried to use on me back in the day.

I have been to third world countries, places where they store their pee and poop in the open, where they think if you take their picture you are stealing their soul, where there is extreme poverty and you don't dare go out after dark unless you are packing heat and have at least 4 other armed members with you. I won't tell you the countries, but sure I've been to Canada many times and Mexico many times and probably to about 30 states

Now, let me ask you, does my answer, which is the complete opposite of what you were expecting, change anything?

If the answer is no, then you have to wonder why you even asked the question in the first place, and will understand why I have ignored it until now...

[2dimes]

I am really interested in that question (if he has ever travelled outside of the US - barring Canadian ski trips or something equally devoid of actual culture).

Canadian ski trip, Whitefish?

[Symmetry]

interesting, is it not, that this is the exact same tactic Woodruff tried to use on me back in the day.

I have been to third world countries, places where they store their pee and poop in the open, where they think if you take their picture you are stealing their soul, where there is extreme poverty and you don't dare go out after dark unless you are packing heat and have at least 4 other armed members with you. I won't tell you the countries, but sure I've been to Canada many times and Mexico many times and probably to about 30 states

Now, let me ask you, does my answer, which is the complete opposite of what you were expecting, change anything?

If the answer is no, then you have to wonder why you even asked the question in the first place, and will understand why I have ignored it until now...

It does answer the question, yes, but I feel will not stop the question being asked again. It was pretty much the nonsense expected.

[thegreekdog]

interesting, is it not, that this is the exact same tactic Woodruff tried to use on me back in the day.

I have been to third world countries, places where they store their pee and poop in the open, where they think if you take their picture you are stealing their soul, where there is extreme poverty and you don't dare go out after dark unless you are packing heat and have at least 4 other armed members with you. I won't tell you the countries, but sure I've been to Canada many times and Mexico many times and probably to about 30 states

Now, let me ask you, does my answer, which is the complete opposite of what you were expecting, change anything?

If the answer is no, then you have to wonder why you even asked the question in the first place, and will understand why I have ignored it until now...

Yeah, but who cares about third world countries and Canada/Mexico? Have you been to the multicultural meccas that are France, England, and Germany? Or what about those havens of racial and ethnic diversity: Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland?

All kidding aside, I think it's probably a natural inclination of the dominant culture in a country to want that culture to stay dominant. I'm not sure it's "okay" to think that way. But most people congregate with people who are like them culturally, for example.

[Phatscotty]

Can't assimilate if there is nothing to assimilate to.

[thegreekdog]

Can't assimilate if there is nothing to assimilate to.

This is the kind of thing that gets you labelled as a troll by certain people. What do you mean by this? How is this relevant to the discussion?

And you missed my point entirely. Certain countries have no multicultural issues because there aren't enough people of different cultures (e.g. Norway). Other countries have multicultural issues and are dealing with them in a much harsher way than we are dealing with them in the U.S. (e.g. France).

[Phatscotty]

Can't assimilate if there is nothing to assimilate to.

This is the kind of thing that gets you labelled as a troll by certain people. What do you mean by this? How is this relevant to the discussion?

And you missed my point entirely. Certain countries have no multicultural issues because there aren't enough people of different cultures (e.g. Norway). Other countries have multicultural issues and are dealing with them in a much harsher way than we are dealing with them in the U.S. (e.g. France).

Sure, I saw your point. I don't have a clue how that could be trolling. But I can put it another way

the "predominant culture" is what is assimilated too. There is a culture war going on right now, and this new generation is the first generation of non-assimilation to our heritage and our culture. They are creating their own and pushing it everywhere you look. Often whatever they are pushing is just counter to the culture, for the sake of being different or opposite or based on imperfections or flaws of the predominant culture

[thegreekdog]

Can't assimilate if there is nothing to assimilate to.

This is the kind of thing that gets you labelled as a troll by certain people. What do you mean by this? How is this relevant to the discussion?

And you missed my point entirely. Certain countries have no multicultural issues because there aren't enough people of different cultures (e.g. Norway). Other countries have multicultural issues and are dealing with them in a much harsher way than we are dealing with them in the U.S. (e.g. France).

Sure, I saw your point. I don't have a clue how that could be trolling. But I can put it another way

the "predominant culture" is what is assimilated too. There is a culture war going on right now, and this new generation is the first generation of non-assimilation to our heritage and our culture. They are creating their own and pushing it everywhere you look. Often whatever they are pushing is just counter to the culture, for the sake of being different or opposite or based on imperfections or flaws of the predominant culture

I didn't think it was trolling.

This is the argument of most people who are generally against immigration. These arguments were made with the Irish, southern Europeans, eastern Europeans, and now Mexicans. Everyone assimilates or the culture changes subtly. Relax about it buddy. If assimilation didn't occur, I'd be speaking Greek, eating kouvalakias, and getting bailed out by Germans right now.

[Phatscotty]

Can't assimilate if there is nothing to assimilate to.

This is the kind of thing that gets you labelled as a troll by certain people. What do you mean by this? How is this relevant to the discussion?

And you missed my point entirely. Certain countries have no multicultural issues because there aren't enough people of different cultures (e.g. Norway). Other countries have multicultural issues and are dealing with them in a much harsher way than we are dealing with them in the U.S. (e.g. France).

Sure, I saw your point. I don't have a clue how that could be trolling. But I can put it another way

the "predominant culture" is what is assimilated too. There is a culture war going on right now, and this new generation is the first generation of non-assimilation to our heritage and our culture. They are creating their own and pushing it everywhere you look. Often whatever they are pushing is just counter to the culture, for the sake of being different or opposite or based on imperfections or flaws of the predominant culture

I didn't think it was trolling.

This is the argument of most people who are generally against immigration. These arguments were made with the Irish, southern Europeans, eastern Europeans, and now Mexicans. Everyone assimilates or the culture changes subtly. Relax about it buddy. If assimilation didn't occur, I'd be speaking Greek, eating kouvalakias, and getting bailed out by Germans right now.

I don't have a problem with immigration. Our social security and medicare programs depend on it!

I'm relaxed. Some things just need to be said out loud

[Phatscotty]

Perhaps our American culture does not need to be changed, it just needs to be inrtoduced

The most widely offered explanation for Mitt Romney's defeat is that the Republican Party is disproportionately composed of -- aging -- white males.

That is, alas, true.

But the real question is what Republicans should do with this truth.

There are two responses.

The nearly universal response -- meaning the response offered by the liberal media and liberal academics (and some Republicans) -- is that the Republican Party needs to rethink its positions, moving away from conservatism and toward the political center.

The other response is for conservatives and the Republican Party to embark on a massive campaign to influence, and ultimately change, the values of those groups that voted Democrat.

The Democratic Party, and the left generally, have done a magnificent job in identifying conservative values as white male values. One reason for their success is that they dominate virtually every lever of influence -- the high schools and universities, television, newspapers, movies, pop culture and everything else except talk radio. Another is that they really believe that conservative values are nothing more than white male -- especially aging white male -- values. Remember, leftism has its own trinity -- the prism through which it perceives the world -- race, gender and class. In this case the race is white; the gender is male; and the class is rich.

As a result of this identification, there is no debate over whether the minorities' (and single women's) values are correct or whether the values of the white males are correct. The left has successfully forestalled any such national discussion by simply reducing conservative values to the dying fulminations of a former ruling class.

In the words of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, "Mitt Romney is the president of white male America."

This identification seems to be working. But it's intellectually dishonest. Aging white males are as important to the left as they are to the right.

In a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, liberal Harvard professor Benjamin M. Friedman strongly criticized the Tea Party. After citing "surveys showing that Tea Party members are 'predominantly white, male, older, more college-educated and better off economically than typical Americans,'" he noted parenthetically "they sound like, say, readers of The New York Review of Books."

Come to think of it, these people who make up the tea party also sound like the people who attend classical music concerts, who endow concert halls, museums, hospitals, and universities, and fund left-wing causes (George Soros, for example).

Perhaps when this generation of aging white males dies off, aging women, aging Latino and black males, and young people will become the readers of journals such as the New York Review of Books and endow symphony orchestras.

I suspect not. And if not, the left may come to regret its contempt for this particular group. Without aging white males, I doubt the New York Times would survive. How many young people, females, Hispanics and blacks subscribe to the New York Times?

Obviously the issue for the left isn't aging white males, it is conservatives, whether they are young or old, white or nonwhite, male or female. If female aborigines were conservative, the left would have a problem with female aborigines.

For conservatives, the issue is that for generations now, they have failed to make the case for their values. They haven't even conveyed conservative values to many of their children. And when they have, the university has often succeeded in undoing them.

The only answer to the "demographic" problem, therefore, is to bring women (single women, to be precise), young people, Hispanics, and blacks to conservative values. I wrote a column in September ("It's not Just the Economy, Stupid!") criticizing the Mitt Romney campaign for only talking about jobs and the economy. President Obama kept saying that this election was about two different visions of America. But like George Herbert Walker Bush, the Romney campaign appeared to disdain "the vision thing."

Our only hope for America is that every conservative takes upon him or herself the project of learning what American and conservative values are, coming to understand what leftism stands for, and learning how to make the case for those values to women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. That is what my radio show, latest book and Prager University are about. And while I am, happily, hardly alone, there are still far too few of us who understand "the vision thing." Surely the Republican establishment has not.

We should missionize for the American Trinity (Liberty, In God We Trust, E Pluribus Unum) as least as passionately as the left has missionized for its antithesis -- Egalitarianism, Secularism and Multiculturalism. Or we will lose America as we have always known it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispr ... d_changing

[MeDeFe]

When someone talks about values being "correct" or not, someone is probably off their rocker. The whole "us-vs-them" black-and-white worldview that follows doesn't do much to change the impression either. However, there are a few bright spots in there and the general idea of conservatives conveying their values so people can judge them on their merit is a good one.

Conservatives might still want to ensure that it's not Todd Akin doing the conveying of values.

[Phatscotty]

When someone talks about values being "correct" or not, someone is probably off their rocker. The whole "us-vs-them" black-and-white worldview that follows doesn't do much to change the impression either. However, there are a few bright spots in there and the general idea of conservatives conveying their values so people can judge them on their merit is a good one.

Conservatives might still want to ensure that it's not Todd Akin doing the conveying of values.

I think its at least an equal statement that some candidate from some state can encompass an entire party. There are actually plenty of elected Democrat and Democrat candidates that actively stump for and are endorsed by the Communist party USA, but we don't have the same kind of narrative enforcement power the Left has

[Lootifer]

interesting, is it not, that this is the exact same tactic Woodruff tried to use on me back in the day.

I have been to third world countries, places where they store their pee and poop in the open, where they think if you take their picture you are stealing their soul, where there is extreme poverty and you don't dare go out after dark unless you are packing heat and have at least 4 other armed members with you. I won't tell you the countries, but sure I've been to Canada many times and Mexico many times and probably to about 30 states

Now, let me ask you, does my answer, which is the complete opposite of what you were expecting, change anything?

If the answer is no, then you have to wonder why you even asked the question in the first place, and will understand why I have ignored it until now...

Oh I was just curious.

Yes your answer does surprise me. But only to the part of my brain that is naturally judgemental/prejustice; i dont like that part of my brain, and challenge it at every turn (but at least I know it exists eh...).

I love observing other cultures for the single reason to be mystified at how different they are; and for one am glad and impressed that you have got out and seen some of the world. I encourage you and everyone else on this forum to keep doing so.

[Phatscotty]

interesting, is it not, that this is the exact same tactic Woodruff tried to use on me back in the day.

I have been to third world countries, places where they store their pee and poop in the open, where they think if you take their picture you are stealing their soul, where there is extreme poverty and you don't dare go out after dark unless you are packing heat and have at least 4 other armed members with you. I won't tell you the countries, but sure I've been to Canada many times and Mexico many times and probably to about 30 states

Now, let me ask you, does my answer, which is the complete opposite of what you were expecting, change anything?

If the answer is no, then you have to wonder why you even asked the question in the first place, and will understand why I have ignored it until now...

Oh I was just curious.

Yes your answer does surprise me. But only to the part of my brain that is naturally judgemental/prejustice; i dont like that part of my brain, and challenge it at every turn (but at least I know it exists eh...).

I love observing other cultures for the single reason to be mystified at how different they are; and for one am glad and impressed that you have got out and seen some of the world. I encourage you and everyone else on this forum to keep doing so.

oh yeah. Nobody can truly understand until their eyes are physically "opened", you really do need to experience what poor truly means, or "decrepit" or "slum". I had my eyes opened the first time I was in Venezuela, and on illegal immigrants as well when I worked for a company that hired them and ended up giving them rides to the bus stop at time and talking to them and hearing their situations. I can still get free car washes and free KFC (but I don't)

[thegreekdog]

When someone talks about values being "correct" or not, someone is probably off their rocker. The whole "us-vs-them" black-and-white worldview that follows doesn't do much to change the impression either. However, there are a few bright spots in there and the general idea of conservatives conveying their values so people can judge them on their merit is a good one.

Conservatives might still want to ensure that it's not Todd Akin doing the conveying of values.

Do you think the "us vs. them" worldview is a natural worldview for humans? There are a whole lot of "us vs. them" conflicts going on right now. I bet we can come up with 100 in a very short amount of time.

[Lootifer]

Perhaps our American culture does not need to be changed, it just needs to be inrtoduced

The most widely offered ...

*snip*

... Or we will lose America as we have always known it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispr ... d_changing

Like MeDeFe I support the notion of getting the ideals out there and evaluating them on merit. But unfortunately for the conservative party I think that a) the ideals are fairly well publicised already and b ) many of the conservative ideals have been evaluated and consequently rejected.

Assuming that conservativism is adherence to the three things you've previously mentioned (um, Liberty, In God we trust and E pluribus unum) then you are, without making allowances, going to lose a lot of people from the get go.

The God one is easy, athieism/agnostism is on the rise globally; its arguably not going to slow down anytime soon. If conservativism insists on saying "If you dont believe in god you are wrong" then kiss goodbye to somewhere between 15-20% (and growing) of the supporter base.

The same kind of thing applies to Liberty (its perfectly rational to sacrifice liberty for either fairness or equality in your outlook), and E pluribus unum (collectivism is a common political stance).

I would be inclined to think that the problem isnt the conservative movements' policy dissemination; its more of a case that that people are simply choosing the alternative.

[Lootifer]

When someone talks about values being "correct" or not, someone is probably off their rocker. The whole "us-vs-them" black-and-white worldview that follows doesn't do much to change the impression either. However, there are a few bright spots in there and the general idea of conservatives conveying their values so people can judge them on their merit is a good one.

Conservatives might still want to ensure that it's not Todd Akin doing the conveying of values.

Do you think the "us vs. them" worldview is a natural worldview for humans? There are a whole lot of "us vs. them" conflicts going on right now. I bet we can come up with 100 in a very short amount of time.

Yes I think that is the critical issue we, as humans, face. And its unfortunately fairly hard wired into our mentality.

I firmly believe that our next stage of evolution is overcoming this issue. I mean I get sucked into us and them shit all the time and I hate that shit and actively fight against it...

[Phatscotty]

Perhaps our American culture does not need to be changed, it just needs to be inrtoduced

The most widely offered ...

*snip*

... Or we will lose America as we have always known it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/dennispr ... d_changing

Like MeDeFe I support the notion of getting the ideals out there and evaluating them on merit. But unfortunately for the conservative party I think that a) the ideals are fairly well publicised already and b ) many of the conservative ideals have been evaluated and consequently rejected.

What do you base this on?

[Lootifer]

My analysis of the phatscotty form of conservatism (the triangle you listed in another post). Yes it is quite assertive so feel free to correct my mistakes.

[Phatscotty]

My analysis of the phatscotty form of conservatism (the triangle you listed in another post). Yes it is quite assertive so feel free to correct my mistakes.

Those are American values; the American trinity

[Phatscotty]

[Lootifer]

My analysis of the phatscotty form of conservatism (the triangle you listed in another post). Yes it is quite assertive so feel free to correct my mistakes.

Those are American values; the American trinity

Yeh but I assume that those of a conservative bent are far more dedicated to those values than, say, your average liberal?

Also the thing with strategic values of this kind (you see this in business all the time) is that they are aspirations, not attributes. Seldom at any point are any strategic values ever actually realised. Sure at a national/country level this is slightly different; but when in history were the citizens of America ever truely free (rhetorical question, lets not have the slaves debate), or, when has the whole population truely risen up, unified, as one? Again rhetorical question; my point is that on a day to day basis these arent the attributes of [modern] america; they are the aspirations which dictate behaviour.

And this is where the [fundamental] liberal argument comes in: it's not a matter of wanting to expand government for selfish purposes, or that we are all hell bent on mooching off good honest hardworking folk; its at a higher level than that, at the value level; liberals ask: are these really the values we want to priortise above all else in modern america? Liberty is great, but what about fairness and equality? (caveat: I only support the former or the latter when it is defined as equality of opportunity), what about instead of all trying to unite as one we "agree to disagree" and accept our differences - and instead focus on something more relevant like cleansing ourselves of corruption and inefficiencies in business/government?

(the religious one is completely different, I would call it a statement of the individual rather than a value - in god we trust, well, until someone doesn't... and you cant really have it alongside liberty - "you're free as you like, just not in terms of what you believe in" - not saying it shouldnt be there: it should; your country is built on a good strong christian foundation - it just isnt a value per se).