America

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by theequestrian

Yes I have. Both my sister and oldest daughter are graduates from there. According to THEM Berkeley has nothing on NYC.

NYC has places so politically correct that they sell "All Vegetable Bacon Bits"? NOT bacon flavored vegetable bits, mind you.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by billybunter

I can't be Aryan, I have greying dark brown hair and being a short arse can't goose step

That is a good physical description of a lot of Aryans!

Hitler included!

Not all are tall blondes,go to Sweeden ,you'll see!

[theequestrian]

NYC has places so politically correct that they sell "All Vegetable Bacon Bits"? NOT bacon flavored vegetable bits, mind you.

'Political Correctness' and political ideology are not the same thing.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by theequestrian

'Political Correctness' and political ideology are not the same thing.

But Political Correctness is determined by Political Ideology.

[theequestrian]

Your logic is spurious.
'intellectually bereft' is the politically correct term for 'dumb fuck'
'Vertically deficient' is the politically correct term for 'shorty'
'Localized gravity well' is the politically correct term for 'fat-ass'
Political correctness is the attempt, through euphemism, to create equality where it does not exist, or more broadly, to soften-the-blow.

Political ideology is an individuals or states overall view of how it should govern. Fiscal policy, relations with foreign states, budget allocation, etc. are examples of this.

They are not the same, nor should one have any influence on the other.

As to what 'vegetarian bacon bits' are, I would say neither. It is a marketing ploy targeting a population obsessed with marginal health products.
A population that takes pills to: get it up, go to sleep, shit regularly, stop shitting so regularly, improve brain power, increase memory, decrease joint pain, grow hair, remove ear wax, ad nauseum.
It is not however either politically correct or ideological.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by teatsfan

Hopefully, and well deserved so. All that egomaniacal babble about "the American Dream", "Beacon to the world" etc. etc. was a fata morgana at the expense of other countries anyway.
I recommend stocking up on popcorn, because when their glorious, parasitic system and oppression of the world finally croaks, there will be alot of dirty laundry exposed, things that to this day are loathed and ridiculed as "conspiracy theories".
Karma is a bitch indeed.

Gosh, golly, gee whiz are you another I hate America because, while not as great as we once were, we are still pretty damn good I don't know where you live but have you ever been to the U.S.? If so have you talked with us? Seen how most of us live? Ever done independent unbiased research on those you seem to hate or have you just formed your opinions from your local news sources (I am guessing very anti-Americnand) and let your attitudes be formed that way?? As for our getting stuff at the expense of other countries, guess what, they don't have to sell it to us.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Norbert84

They're heading to the countries who've been exploiting them before.

You can only be exploited if you allow it. Therefore they choose to accept the filthy lucre in order to make money. I admit it is more than likely they feel they have no choice in the matter. So who rips who off

[SanteeFats]

Zulus in Africa at the same time could beat the English. It is a fact [/QUOTE]

Tell that to the British at Rorke's Drift!! Yes the Zulu's wiped out a British column of approximately 4,000 but that had a lot to do with the commanders not taking the Zulu's seriously. Boy did they pay fo that

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Actually, I reckon the Native American leaders deserve more credit than that, especially Crazy Horse, who was a really gifted tactician. The Seventh Cavalry had planned a three pronged pincer movement against the tribes camped on the Little Bighorn, and Custer commanded the sharp end of one prong of the pincer. He wasn't quite as tactically naive as people seem to think. He counted on being supported by General George Crook and a large force (about 1000 strong) of cavalry advancing from Fort Fetterman in Wyoming and by a smaller but still powerful force of about 570 cavalry under Colonel John Gibbon advancing eastwards into the Dakotas from Fort Ellis in Montana. But Crazy Horse did what Napoleon would have done and used the far superior tactical mobility of his men to defeat the US cavalry columns one at a time. Colonel Gibbon was too slow off the mark and his column was not in theatre until it was all over; Crazy Horse ignored him. General Crook advanced in better order than Custer and had excellent Crow and Shoshone scouts who saved his bacon by giving him enough advanced warning to deploy correctly when he was attacked, but even so he was bloodily repulsed and sent packing. This was the Battle of the Rosebud Creek fought in 17th June 1876, a 6 hour engagement which demoralised Crook and his forces partly because the Native Americans showed unusual willingness to accept casualties and press home their advantage rather than do a fade and conserve their limited resources as was their usual and perfectly sound technique. But Crazy Horse needed to achieve a decision at the Rosebud; it was imperative that Crook be driven off. He achieved this result and accepted the necessary casualties.

The Little Bighorn took place on 25th June 1876. I cannot ascertain whether Custer or his commander, General Terry, had been warned that General Crook had retreated back to base in disarray; 8 days should have been long enough to get a message through, but communications were difficult and messengers would have been riding through disputed territory where either side could suddenly run into trouble, so I don't know. Perhaps Custer hadn't heard about the Rosebud at all. If he had, it didn't make him understand the need to concentrate his forces or to scout the territory in front of him carefully. But Crazy Horse has batted off the threat which the original plan had intended would divide the Native American forces into several fronts, and was free to concentrate all his men on Custer.

It is not impossible that there were one or two West Point graduates on the Native American side actually. Crazy Horse never went there; he was self-taught. But lecturers at West Point have cited him as an outstanding leader of light cavalry and pointed out that he totally out-generalled all the US Army commanders, Crook, Terry and Gibbons, in order to get Custer exactly where he wanted him. One of the strengths of the US Army historically has been that it discusses its mistakes objectively and learns from them. One of the lessons it drew was that Native Americans can be really hard bastards and are actually worth having on the home team; many Native Americans distinguished themselves in American uniform in WW2, almost a lifetime after the Little Bighorn.

First let me state, with out any rascism on my part, I believe that the American Indians should be called First Americans not native. By definition a native is someone born in the country or area. That makes me as native as them. Also let me state that numerous First American' have served with great valor in many conflicts and have been treated horribly by the rest of us, usually whites. Now as to Custer, he was an idiot. He believed he was a war god and could not be beaten. Wrong!!! Recent battleground forensic research seems to support the Sioux tales about the battle. Their tales say they only lost about 26 warriors killed in the battle. The forensics teams have found a lot of supporting evidence. It appears Custer's command never formed the famous circle. It seems his force just fled in panic when they saw the huge numbers of Indians. They spread out all over the area looking for any kind of cover.There is forensic evidence from numerous shell casings finds that the cavalry just ran helter skelter looking for any place to hide. None made it of course . The moral of this debacle is to never over estimate the enemy and NEVER split your force unless you know you have overwhelming superiority in numbers. Even then better think thrice.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by billybunter

I find it amazing that posters are lambasted for being "anti-American" everyone is entitled to their opinion. As long as it's not offensive. You have to take the rough with the smooth. Of course if someone started a thread called Russia or China, you wouldn't hear a peep

I am an American and I welcome legitimate criticisms, accolades, and comments about my country. What I find hard to stomach is such blatant, anti-American, or any other country for that matter, viewpoints that seem to come from a biased view that has no basis in facts, information, a personal visit (Hello teatsfan) or other experience. As to starting a thread about another country I say go for it. Depending on who starts it they may not like what they read but I some times don't about America.