Your Opinion of this Video (political)

[Space05us]

I am going to withhold my own opinion, at least for now, so as not to influence your opinions before watching it.

[Zkribbler]

If we had a bull****-powered engine we'd have the energy crisis solved.

[Seedle]

Hmm, I agree with some of his larger critiques, but mostly I think he's a racist *******. I do agree that we need to worry more about aid for America, and American infrastructure, than foreign aid. (Though that isn't to say I think America should isolate itself(not that it could, duh.)) I also agree that change ain't coming from parties and politicians, it has to come from the people.

As a non-conformist (not that you'd know it to look at me) myself, I don't approve of his "one culture" rhetoric. I do agree that some of the anti-god stuff goes to far, but that "some" is tiny indeed. And all I can say about teh Mexicans is when I see them, they're working. I obviously can't speak for all of them, but on the whole, they seem like they work. If America is becoming poorer with the addition of workers to its labor pool, then the problem is with America, not the additional workers.

Also, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts this guy is economically right-wing. I wonder if he realizes that Paine advocated the government giving everyone (well, males, iirc, it was the eighteenth century) a (one-time) check when they, iirc, reached the age of majority. Actually, upon a quick look at his writings, it was 21 years, and he has clauses for blind folks, and cripples, and ideas for work houses for the unemployed, sponsored by the government. Yessir, a dirty commie, that Thomas Paine.

But while looking for that, I came upon this lovely passage from Common Sense:

But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more shame
upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages
make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion, if true, turns
to her reproach; but it happens not to be true, or only partly so,
and the phrase PARENT or MOTHER COUNTRY hath been jesuitically
adopted by the king and his parasites, with a low papistical design
of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous weakness of our minds.
Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new
world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and
religious liberty from EVERY PART of Europe. Hither have they fled,
not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of
the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny
which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants
still.

In this extensive quarter of the globe, we forget the narrow limits
of three hundred and sixty miles (the extent of England) and carry
our friendship on a larger scale; we claim brotherhood with every
European christian, and triumph in the generosity of the sentiment.

It is pleasant to observe by what regular gradations we surmount
the force of local prejudice, as we enlarge our acquaintance with the
world. A man born in any town in England divided into parishes, will
naturally associate most with his fellow parishioners (because their
interests in many cases will be common) and distinguish him by the
name of NEIGHBOUR; if he meet him but a few miles from home, he
drops the narrow idea of a street, and salutes him by the name of
TOWNSMAN; if he travel out of the county, and meet him in any
other, he forgets the minor divisions of street and town, and calls
him COUNTRYMAN; i. e. COUNTY-MAN; but if in their foreign
excursions they should associate in France or any other part of
EUROPE, their local remembrance would be enlarged into that of
ENGLISHMEN. And by a just parity of reasoning, all Europeans
meeting in America, or any other quarter of the globe, are
COUNTRYMEN; for England, Holland, Germany, or Sweden, when compared
with the whole, stand in the same places on the larger scale, which
the divisions of street, town, and county do on the smaller ones;
distinctions too limited for continental minds. Not one third of the
inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore
I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England
only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.

So, uhh, Paine was really about teh one culture, one people. I realize that he does mention they are Christians. I also realize that the differences in culture between England, Holland, Germany, and Sweden may not be that great. And I also am aware that Paine's larger point is that they are no longer of those countries, but of America, which would seem to support this douchebag, not contradict him. However, Paine is also making the point that America must be inclusive and not hold onto the past, whereas "Mr. Patriot" wants to be exclusive and live in the past.

[Swissy]

Too bad he went overboard to get to the real message. Our government is no longer representative, mainly because to few bother to contact their elected representatives.

Calling works, its the reason we didn't get a new immigration bill passed this year.

[RGBVideo]

saw this video while analyzing ronald reagan's speeches from youtube today, was reminded of this thread.

good video, good thread

[Theben]

Where back in the good ol' days was the cause for "one religion, one culture" when referring to us dirty Irish and Italians?

He had some valid points wrt sending money to other countries that don't really like us but for the most part it was bs.

[RGBVideo]

What an original comparison! Let's see if it holds any water...

Where back in the good ol' days was the cause for "one religion, one culture" when referring to us dirty Irish and Italians?

This comparison makes plenty of sense, since the Italians refused to speak English, flew Italian flags over US flags in flagpoles, and Italian politicians lobbied for Italians living in New York to have voting rights before going through the citizenship naturalization process applied to all other immigrant groups and talked about conquering the mid-atlantic states and annexing them to Italy in the name of "reconquista".

Read history before using it, or you'll only end up misusing it. Your comment is a cliched talking point with no historical justification.

But by all means, let's talk about how mass immigration in the first half of the 20th century didn't destroy US, either so there's nothing to worry about. You know why mass immigration didn't have radical and harmful consequences to the US back when groups like Italians and Finns were the newest immigrant groups? Back then even the most progressive political leaders had common sense outlined in the video above our posts:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Who's speaking there? Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, the progressive President in 1901-1909 and the Progressive Party candidate for President in '12. Back then, citizens had the courage to boycott career politicians who self-censored their speeches (or more importantly, policies) with political correctness in hopes of a few percentage points from special interest groups during elections.

but for the most part it was bs.

What's bs and why? It's a powerful video because so much of it isn't BS if you start thinking about it, but all of it is considered to be BS on the worldview of our media providers.

[RGBVideo]

ps: **** the upgraded vBulletin

[Arrian]

This comparison makes plenty of sense, since the Italians refused to speak English, flew Italian flags over US flags in flagpoles, and Italian politicians lobbied for Italians living in New York to have voting rights before going through the citizenship naturalization process applied to all other immigrant groups and talked about conquering the mid-atlantic states and annexing them to Italy in the name of "reconquista".

These things are representative of the Mexican immigrant community in the USA today? Admittedly, I don't live on the border, but I'm not seein' it. I suspect this is a case of labelling a large group of people by picking the worst examples as representative of the whole.

-Arrian

[RGBVideo]

The point is that the two events can not be compared to each other, precisely because we've lost our requirements for common sense from our legislators.

There are some immigrants which are abusing the welfare system of the country they've immigrated to and in some cases are practically fighting an undeclared war against it's civilian population. But when anyone talks about deportation of some immigrants or increased oversight of future immigrants, (s)he's labeled as a "xenophobe", "nativist", or some other code-word for an extremist clinging on to an antiquated ideology.

I suspect this is a case of labelling a large group of people by picking the worst examples as representative of the whole.

Yeah, that's my point. Why are "the worst examples" still among us? Who let them in? There weren't problems with such back when we weren't pussified beyond recognition by political correctness.

[Whoha]

He is wrong about having to bring in Indians and Chinese for tech. If businesses had any trouble attracting the skilled labor they need for the global economy then they can spend money in a number of ways to redress this, which they are not doing.

[Traianvs]

Isn't he just spouting the traditional conservative right wing point of view? Nothing new here.

[Riesstiu IV]

Going against popular feeling in the US, Bush purposely thwarted any effective immigration reform and attempted amnesty in order to gain more Hispanic support for Republicans and please business interests who employed hoards of unskilled Mexican peasants. Look how well that turned out for Republicans this election.

[Arrian]

practically fighting an undeclared war against it's civilian population

WTF?

-Arrian

[GePap]

For a man who speaks so much about paying attention to history, he sure hasn't.

The United States of America was not created to have a single "culture" or nation. Hence the name, United States. Certainly, that changed with the Civil War, but any claims that the founders intended to create some monolithic single unitary Nation are bull**** - before the Civil War the identity most dear to most "Americans" was their State identity.

What united them all is a single set of political ideals. This is what sets the United States apart, and those ideals are not language or "culture" specific.

As for international aide and the US budget, so what is our government borrows money overseas to then spend it somewhere else overseas? If it goes to good use and spreads our influence and power effectively, then it should be done.

So overall, I think the video is a guy with a reasonable voice and decent presenting skills spouting tired ideological points which would fall apart under strong scrutiny.