Atman wrote: 
So is this news to you or a confirmation of your own thoughts ?

Ain't no surprise to me.

The Fourth Estate is no longer.  I pronounced it dead when I raised the point that rather than investigate Bernie Madoff, Mort Zuckerman of the U S News and World Report and The New York Daily News chose to keep it to himself and invest.  So welcome to the party.  You One must now view more news than ever from ALL sources to be able to cull some sort of sense of what is going on.  Which makes places like these where people post all kinds of links that are from obscure sources more valuable.

FWIW: Last night on C2C I heard a prediction of a Bank Holiday coming in the Fall.  Also, support HR 1207 by calling your Representives.  It is the Bill that calls for an audit of the Federal Reserve.  It is being held in committee by Frank and Pelosi.  They are blocking its vote and preventing it from getting to the floor.  This bill has bi partisan sponsorship of over 280 members of the House and 20 sponsors in the Senate.

HR 1207

 Atman wrote: 

no comment

 musik_knut wrote: 
Didn't you like this? I thought it was very bi-partisan of me.

Regardless of your political position, this has got to make you sick to your stomach. I admit, I love Keith Olbermann and Charlie Rose, and this is depressing as hell. If anyone thinks that any media outlet has the least amount of integrity, then:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/01/ge/

 hippiechick wrote: 

it's ok...I  think I'll avoid the political threads...I seem destined to just tangle with folks in here...that's boring and not a lot of fun...
thanks...

 musik_knut wrote:To musik_knut:

I apologize for poking you these past two days.

*bump*

Good NPR coverage concerning the video clip below - apparently, the "birther" movement is more than just a few congressmen and a couple of judges - it's grass roots!
 brandog wrote: 

 The_End wrote: 
One thing I can say for sure is that I want the lunatic fringe to be just as visible and noisy as possible - when it all comes down, and the shooting starts, I know who's gonna get it while I'm busy collecting canned food, boxes of irradiated bacon, batteries, and fuel from the ruins of their bunkers.

 The_End wrote: 
Meet the New American Right
same as the Old American Right
(just add crystal meth and stir)

I hope America becomes an 3litist meritocracy soon - all this yammering is making me tired.

 musik_knut wrote: 
You have a point there.

This woman should get some kind of prize and a complimentary 72 hour evaluation at the nearest mental health facility.


I nominate her for

The Purple Brain Award

for July, 2009.

 kurtster wrote: 
And I, for one, am richer and grateful for your being here, this day... and the next.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Fine. So, when I say I'm not a HAVE, I'm BSing? Fine. Believe what fabrications you wish to create of me even though you don't know me. Stereotype me as you wish. That's bigotry in motion. You do it pathetically well... It seems much of your angst stems from not enough being done for you...

kurtster wrote:
I would like to think that an American is someone who recognizes and respects the roots of the nation's birth and finds that the Constitution is the accepted law of the land (and puts country ahead of ethnicity).  That it was born of an Anglo Protestant point of view is a fact and the way things are.  To ignore that and / or make it a detraction is a disservice to this nation and the Constitution.   While the Founding Fathers and documents recognize a Creator, it does not recognize any particular church or devine right to rule.  Whether or not you believe in a creator is secondary and neither's rights are restricted.  
I would also proffer that those who come to America with the intent to change rather than join what has been established is undesireable. 

——————————————————————————-

Jadewahoo wrote:
Geez, you Americans sure do not know your history:
Origins or Our Constitution
Much of the Constitution came from the Five Nations Constitution, a document created by a group of eastern American Indian tribes called the Iroquois. The original five nations included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. Later, when the Tuscaroras Nation joined the Iroquois, they called it the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The estimated date of the creation of the document is August 31, 1142 and was approved in what is now a football field in Victor, New York.<1> 
———————————
Our Founding Fathers:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
                            John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

."Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
                      Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
                           James Madison - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.  I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
                       George Washington in a letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church,  nor by any Church that I know of.  My own mind is my own Church.  Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
                         Thomas Paine

Shall I go on?
———————————
Well, I do agree with you on this point...

The indigenous American Indian population had already been reduced, in a process which is ongoing to this day, from perhaps 12.5 million in the year 1500 to fewer than 250,000 by the beginning of the 20th century. This was accomplished, according to official sources, "largely through the cruelty of Euro American settlers," and an informal but clear governmental policy which had made it an articulated goal to "exterminate these red vermin" or at least whole segments of them.

.

Or, as my Gramma Naomi (the Matriarch of our Clan) said "Them? Don't listen to them. They are all Boat People (that is: illegal immigrants, for you who do not remember Boat People anxiety)."

................................................

So, you see, your whole premise, and that of the other 'Anti-Them' flag-wavers, is based in illusion, falsehood and ignorance. Why, you wonder, do some around you so disparage your beliefs and paranoid rantings? Well, it is time to take an honest look at the investment you carry in your agenda. Then... get off it, or be forever doomed to rant and rave like a crazy man in the park.

—————————————————————————————————

My response:

I still maintain that regardless of its roots, the final draft of the Constitution had a point of view which was is for lack of any other way to express it, is of an Anglo Protestant reference.  It does not mention any particular religion and in fact is devoid of any particular reference other than God and Creator, who ever "it" or "they" might be.

The Constitution is the result and does not infact authorize any injustices and the genocide that the leaders of this country perpetrated on the indigenous American Indian population.  What happened was a perversion of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.  There is no justification for what happened, IMO.  Everyone lost lives and property in this war of attrition.  I cannot apologize for what I was not responsible for.  As I can accurately say that no one in my family ever owned slaves, why should I have to bear that responsibility associated with being a white man ?  This is a circular argument at best, and I know that I am doomed to lose just because I am a Caucasian American.  I am guilty because I am.  Can I say with assuredness that my family never committed attrocities towards indigenous American Indians, no, but to the best of my knowledge, no.  But here we are. 

When it is accepted that EVERYONE here came from somewhere else, including the indigenous American Indian population that crossed the land bridge from Asia, then we are finally going to be able to resolve some of our problems.  There are no natives to this continent. To use the I was here first argument is hollow for anyone on this continent trying to make any point.  That discussion always ends in war.  Other than expressing points of view on things I observe, I can only speak for myself, in the end.  I cannot speak for my government, my ancestors or progeny, only myself.  You lay out a solid argument for the points you offer, of that I cannot disagree.

In my arguments, I don't believe that I use the term "WE" very much, if at all.  I only offer my take on what I see.  My views are not set in stone and I am not in lock step with any particular party or point of view that I know of.  I offer my take on things for the purpose of discussion, learning and in some cases, to challenge rediculous assertions.  And yes I will take some pot shots, but never intentionally go personal.  (EXO not included)  I learn more each day, especially when my views are challenged and I have to come up with a serious defense of them.  They change and evolve as I live.  In the end, I must use the Constitution as a reference for living in this country.  My conscience tells me other things, but still I use the Constitution as a reference point to interact with all others in this country.  What else can I use ?

So is this the place for a serious discussion of anything ?  Probably not.  Its an Internet Radio station website after all, more suited for discussions of trivia and American Idol and the like.  But WTF, I enjoy a good argument, even if I am on the losing side.  Because it made me think.  I still get something out of it that I can use in real life and hopefully in the next one.



Hell I don't even know if I made any sense after re reading this as I am pretty flippin tired, but WTF, tomorrow is a new day.  To me that is the most important part of life now.

 kurtster wrote:Geez, you Americans sure do not know your history:
Origins or Our Constitution
Much of the Constitution came from the Five Nations Constitution, a document created by a group of eastern American Indian tribes called the Iroquois. The original five nations included the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas. Later, when the Tuscaroras Nation joined the Iroquois, they called it the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The estimated date of the creation of the document is August 31, 1142 and was approved in what is now a football field in Victor, New York.<1> 
—————————————————————-
Our Founding Fathers:
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved— the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
                            John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

."Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law."
                      Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
                           James Madison - "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated.  I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
                       George Washington in a letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church,  nor by any Church that I know of.  My own mind is my own Church.  Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
                         Thomas Paine

Shall I go on?
—————————————————————-
Well, I do agree with you on this point...

The indigenous American Indian population had already been reduced, in a process which is ongoing to this day, from perhaps 12.5 million in the year 1500 to fewer than 250,000 by the beginning of the 20th century. This was accomplished, according to official sources, "largely through the cruelty of Euro American settlers," and an informal but clear governmental policy which had made it an articulated goal to "exterminate these red vermin" or at least whole segments of them.

Bounties had been placed on the scalps of Indians ­ any Indians ­ in places as diverse as Georgia, Kentucky, Texas, the Dakotas, Oregon, and California and had been maintained until resident Indian populations were decimated or disappeared altogether. Entire peoples such as the Cherokee had been reduced to half their size through a policy of forced removal from their homelands east of the Mississippi River to what were then considered less preferable areas in the West.

Others, such as the Navajo, suffered the same fate while under military guard for years on end. The United States Army had also perpetrated a long series of wholesale massacres of Indians at places like Horseshoe Bend, Bear River, Sand Creek, the Washita River, the Marias River, Camp Robinson and Wounded Knee.

Through it all, hundreds of popular novels - each competing with the next to make Indians appear more grotesque, menacing, and inhuman - were sold in the tens of millions of copies in the U.S. Plainly, the Euro American public was being conditioned to see Indians in such a way so as to allow their eradication to continue. And continue it did until the Manifest Destiny of the U.S ­ a direct precursor to what Hitler would subsequently call Lebensraumpolitik (the politics of living space) was consummated.

By 1900, the national project of "clearing" Native Americans from their land and replacing them with "superior" Anglo American settlers was complete; the indigenous population had been reduced by as much as 98 percent while approximately 97.5 percent of their original territory had ''passed'' to the invaders. The survivors had been concentrated, out of sight and mind of the public, on scattered "reservations," all of them under the self-assigned "plenary" (full) power of the federal government. There was, of course, no Nuremberg-style tribunal passing judgment on those who had fostered such circumstances in North America. No U.S. official or private citizen was ever imprisoned ­ never mind hanged ­ for implementing or propagandizing what had been done. Nor had the process of genocide afflicting Indians been completed. Instead, it merely changed form.

Between the 1880s and the 1980s, nearly half of all Native American children were coercively transferred from their own families, communities, and cultures to those of the conquering society. This was done through compulsory attendance at remote boarding schools, often hundreds of miles from their homes, where native children were kept for years on end while being systematically '"deculturated" (indoctrinated to think and act in the manner of Euro Americans rather than as Indians). It was also accomplished through a pervasive foster home and adoption program ­ including - blind adoptions, where children would be permanently denied information as to who they were/are and where they'd come from - placing native youths in non-Indian homes.

The express purpose of all this was to facilitate a U.S. governmental policy to bring about the "assimilation" (dissolution) of indigenous societies. In other words, Indian cultures as such were to be caused to disappear. Such policy objectives are directly contrary to the United Nations 1948 Convention on Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide, an element of international law arising from the Nuremburg proceedings. The forced "transfer of the children" of a targeted "racial, ethnical, or religious group" is explicitly prohibited as a genocidal activity under the Convention's second article.

Article II of the Genocide Convention also expressly prohibits involuntary sterilization as a means of ''preventing births among" a targeted population. Yet, in 1975, it was conceded by the U.S. government that its Indian Health Service (IHS) then a subpart of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was even then conducting a secret program of involuntary sterilization that had affected approximately 40 percent of all Indian women. The program was allegedly discontinued, and the IHS was transferred to the Public Health Service, but no one was punished. In 1990, it came out that the IHS was inoculating, Inuit children in Alaska with Hepatitis-B vaccine. The vaccine had already been banned by the World Health Organization as having demonstrated a correlation with the HIV-Syndrome which is itself correlated to AIDS. As this is written , a "field test" of Hepatitis-A vaccine, also HIV-correlated, is being conducted on Indian reservations in the northern plains region.

from Crimes Against Humanity ©
by Ward Churchill

 

Or, as my Gramma Naomi (the Matriarch of our Clan) said "Them? Don't listen to them. They are all Boat People (that is: illegal immigrants, for you who do not remember Boat People anxiety)."

................................................

So, you see, your whole premise, and that of the other 'Anti-Them' flag-wavers, is based in illusion, falsehood and ignorance. Why, you wonder, do some around you so disparage those of you who hold such beliefs? Well, it is time to take an honest look at the investment you carry in your agenda. Then... get off it, or be forever doomed to rant and rave like a crazy man in the park.

 dionysius wrote: 
I see we have some semantic differences in answering your question.  I would have said, "lives by the ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence and the laws established by the Constitution", not "tries".  The Constitution is not a set of ideals, it is a set of laws.

Your answer is full of ethnic considerations and contains a condemnation of WASP's.  My answer is devoid of the same.  Keeping hyphenations of an ethnicity with American is racist definition of the one using it.  African - American for example is racist IMO, while just plain American is not.  And why is having an agreed upon national language wrong ?  Is that racist as well ?  Some standards have to be set and agreed upon somewhere down the line.

dionysius wrote:
Someone who thinks that football is played with a ball that's pointy on both ends.

 manbirdexperiment wrote: 
Serf's up, dude ! 

 dionysius wrote: 
OK, fair question.

America, unlike most countries, as we know, is a nation of immigrants, not a homogenous ethnic group that has lived in one place indefinitely and successfully defended their turf and evolved into a homogenous nation, such as Germany and Japan for example.

There are two kinds of "legal" Americans for openers.  Those born here and are citizens by birth and those who come here to embrace and join what has been established.  After that however it gets blurry.

I would like to think that an American is someone who recognizes and respects the roots of the nation's birth and finds that the Constitution is the accepted law of the land (and puts country ahead of ethnicity).  That it was born of an Anglo Protestant point of view is a fact and the way things are.  To ignore that and / or make it a detraction is a disservice to this nation and the Constitution.   While the Founding Fathers and documents recognize a Creator, it does not recognize any particular church or devine right to rule.  Whether or not you believe in a creator is secondary and neither's rights are restricted.  

That having been said, it is also the beginning point and from where this nation has evolved into what it is today.  The Constitution did not establish or grant certain political parties any rights, only rules in which groups or factions could operate.  Being an American is also a great responsibility.  IMO it should mean that you are willing to fight and die to protect this country and its Constitution from those who wish to destroy it so that it may continue to exist.  As this country was born out of revolution, many of its detractors use that as justification for its demise.  I find that notion unjustifiable as the revolution provided a means for a country with the best set of rules (so far) to be born.  Prior to that, the rules were that of a foreign monarchy subject to whim and fancy.  The Revolution provided stability, not Anarchy.  The Constitution does provide for change and provides a set of rules for establishing that change.  To do it outside of the terms established in the Constitution, would be in my view, un American and therefore Anti - American.  The only exception to that would be if we were taken over by someone who does not recognize the Constitution as valid.(I am not going down that road for this discussion at this point in time, so don't take me there, yet)  

I would also proffer that those who come to America with the intent to change rather than join what has been established is undesireable.  To come here under any other circumstances than to join and validate what has been established should not be allowed.  This country should change from within, for and by reasons of its legal citizens through the means provided.  This country is the only nation on earth (that I am aware of) that has never been subject to authoritarian rule as an established nation.  There is a reason for that and I find it worth defending.  I also find that as grounds for implementing change slowly and carefully, so as not to fall into the trap of other's failures. 

This may not be an all encompassing answer to such a broad question, but it is my serious and respectful attempt to answer your question.  So in that spirit and also that I was willing to go out on a limb and go first, please provide your answer to your own question before we continue any further discussion on this topic.  Having your answer before we move on will provide a level field for continuing this discussion.

Edit: I see that this thread has moved on while I answered your question and you have partially provided an answer, unless that is your answer to your own question.