WHO IS AMERICA?
MadameLavender said:
as it's site rules to disclose all accounts here as well as if you write elsewhere online, that way members here can know who is who.
Since when? Or is this a new undisclosed rule?
From the Terms:
You are actively discouraged from creating multiple member accounts on this website. If you do have more than one account, you are required to have this stated publicly at all times, on each account's public profile page and forum signature. This public statement must include the usernames of all other Deep Underground Poetry accounts you operate. You may not use additional accounts to promote your own User Content. This includes, but is not limited to, awarding competition trophies, votes, likes and reading list entries. Failure to comply with any of these requirements may lead to some, or all, of your deepundergroundpoetry.com accounts being terminated.
I don't see anything relating to what we do offsite, or anything requiring we list where else we choose to write. Seems that would be our personal business?
Lepp, I haven't forgotten about you. I'm still one in the hole.
as it's site rules to disclose all accounts here as well as if you write elsewhere online, that way members here can know who is who.
Since when? Or is this a new undisclosed rule?
From the Terms:
You are actively discouraged from creating multiple member accounts on this website. If you do have more than one account, you are required to have this stated publicly at all times, on each account's public profile page and forum signature. This public statement must include the usernames of all other Deep Underground Poetry accounts you operate. You may not use additional accounts to promote your own User Content. This includes, but is not limited to, awarding competition trophies, votes, likes and reading list entries. Failure to comply with any of these requirements may lead to some, or all, of your deepundergroundpoetry.com accounts being terminated.
I don't see anything relating to what we do offsite, or anything requiring we list where else we choose to write. Seems that would be our personal business?
Lepp, I haven't forgotten about you. I'm still one in the hole.
Thank you for your patience, Lepp. Just to preface this:
I am still one major shoot in the hole ( we're talking a thousand images ), Monday I'm booked solid morning, noon, and evening; Tuesday, as you know, is a very important day for America. I will have my ass on the streets working the polls for my candidates as much as possible followed by a precinct victory party ( we pray ) for the first Democrat to be elected into a certain house seat in over a decade. I will also be saying as many prayers for my country as possible and would appreciate the same from everyone, regardless of whether you live here or not. We have an opportunity to change the course of this country via this election.
VIVA BLUE WAVE!
That being said, I truly want to continue our conversation; however, this may ( or may not ) be the only at length reply you receive through the middle of next week. We're at the point now that I can't pull off the top of my head on some things you've said, ergo research. And I don't just research - I attempt to verify research.
Enough said - let's get on with it!
lepperochan said:was not Henry Ford the outspoken ant-Semite who had slave labour, and prisoners of war work the assembly line in Germany. basically they (Ford) facilitated the Nazi regime in order to keep the cash register ringing. I dunno what that says to you
Ford's working with the Nazis up to the time America entered the war has been previously addressed. Let me go ahead and interject that it's common knowledge he was a leader of the America First Committee, which sought to keep the United States out of World War II to begin with. Perhaps it was to protect their interests in Germany - perhaps not. I sympathise with Palestine. I couldn't imagine having to relocate from land my father's father owned for hundreds of years because someone else's holy book said it was theirs. Does that make me antisemitic? To some it might ( it certainly did President Carter ), but I'm not.
I've also previously stated that Ford lost control of its German plant after the United States entered the war in 1941. Hence, should Ford be held responsible for actions taken by its German subsidiary during World War II? It is well known that Ford played a pivotal role in WWII by supporting the allied forces. The company threw its entire workforce into that unified effort.
To be fair, there is some evidence that Ford supported Germany through a subsidiary in France up to eight months after the war had commenced. That accusation, as well as the adjacent surrounding Ford, was thrown out by the courts; however, based on the expiration of the statute of limitations - not innocence. While the judge did accept Ford's reasonings, I cannot attest to Ford's personal mindset regarding antisemitism - I didn't know him. However, to be fair, there does appear to be legitimacy in claims he expressed antisemitic opinions via actions both prior to and shortly thereafter the US entered the war.
Ford threw a huge amount of manpower and effort into backing the allies to defeat the Germans once the US entered the war. Was it at the inception of US participation or eight months after? I don't know - nor do I know the reasons why. Did Mr. Ford have a right to his opinions and dislikes? Do we?
You keep referring to a few US companies who may or may not have supported Nazi regime. But they didn't represent America; therefore, it wasn't the country - so that's NOT who America is. Or, was.
Let's discuss IRA's involvement - or lack of - throughout the entire war. Let's discuss Irish Minister to Berlin, Charles Bewley: a Quaker who embraced Irish Republicanism and Roman Catholicism. He was notorious for both anti-Semitic and dogmatically Anglophobic. He neither downplayed nor apologized for Jewish persecution, nor, for that matter, Christian oppression. He referred to the “national rebirth of Germany” in an unconcealed endorsement during his accreditation, and recurrently endorsed Nazism as a safeguard against communism ( particularly Soviet ).
He passionately embraced the Republic and was their representative. It's also reported he intervened on Jewish efforts seeking Visas to the relocate to the safety of the Irish Free State from Germany in the 1930's. Ford certainly didn't do that ( though there were unsubstantiated accusations of slave labor ). If he did - it wasn't representing the US, nor was it outwardly blatant.
So I ask you - we can continue this tit-for-tat America vs Ireland via individuals during WWII, or we can focus on TODAY and who these countries are now. The ball is in your court on that.
Now onto my quote you referred to:
"We refused to remain neutral like some countries waiting to see what foot to put down on the fence they straddled"
lepperochan said: do you see what you did there?
Yes; I addressed this in my previous answer. Mirror mirror on the wall . . . and all that jazz.
lepperochan said:I don't think you understand. but I'm delighted you've read into Ireland if even just for a few minutes. I was hoping you'd figure out Ireland entered ww1 with the rest of the UK. the amount of legally held and illegally held guns in the country numbered upwards of about 250,000 and there were more on the way. plus ...the British army was already there. there was no conscription in Ireland, so those who joined up -volunteered- they were among the first to die, and stayed with their neighbours for the duration of the war despite being 'at war' with the Royal family
Firstly, for the sake of discussion, I have been addressing WWII. I have not once stated that Ireland didn't enter WWI. In regards to weapons, this is the part I had to really research, because it's always been my understanding that the IRA was very poorly equipped during WWII. So which period are you referring to? WWI or II? Because I specifically asked:
"How much artillery did Ireland have in 1940? 80 or so machine guns to protect the entire island? Oh sure, you had navel ships protecting ports, but as a whole the republic was poorly equipped to fend off a full-scale invasion."
Is it not a fact that the IRA was ineffectually attempting to procure weapons and ammunition ( among other needs ) from Germany, and the main reason for their neutrality? Who else were they going to secure it from? Had they not, just the previous year ( 1939 ), raided and stolen one million rounds of ammunition from the Irish Army ( most of which was recovered ) because they were in dire need?
Because it's a commonly known fact now that the majority of weapons supplied to the IRA post WWII are American made and orchestrated by Irish Republicans because of the poor stockpile. However, those efforts are being heavily thwarted.
Anyway, it's recorded history by both Germany and England that the IRA was in no serious position to fully defend the Island from an invasion. And there is a source which lists the inventory of machine guns as 80, because I specifically remember reading it. I will find that source - rest assured. I have looked for over 30 minutes but have exhausted my time on it for today.
I am still one major shoot in the hole ( we're talking a thousand images ), Monday I'm booked solid morning, noon, and evening; Tuesday, as you know, is a very important day for America. I will have my ass on the streets working the polls for my candidates as much as possible followed by a precinct victory party ( we pray ) for the first Democrat to be elected into a certain house seat in over a decade. I will also be saying as many prayers for my country as possible and would appreciate the same from everyone, regardless of whether you live here or not. We have an opportunity to change the course of this country via this election.
VIVA BLUE WAVE!
That being said, I truly want to continue our conversation; however, this may ( or may not ) be the only at length reply you receive through the middle of next week. We're at the point now that I can't pull off the top of my head on some things you've said, ergo research. And I don't just research - I attempt to verify research.
Enough said - let's get on with it!
lepperochan said:was not Henry Ford the outspoken ant-Semite who had slave labour, and prisoners of war work the assembly line in Germany. basically they (Ford) facilitated the Nazi regime in order to keep the cash register ringing. I dunno what that says to you
Ford's working with the Nazis up to the time America entered the war has been previously addressed. Let me go ahead and interject that it's common knowledge he was a leader of the America First Committee, which sought to keep the United States out of World War II to begin with. Perhaps it was to protect their interests in Germany - perhaps not. I sympathise with Palestine. I couldn't imagine having to relocate from land my father's father owned for hundreds of years because someone else's holy book said it was theirs. Does that make me antisemitic? To some it might ( it certainly did President Carter ), but I'm not.
I've also previously stated that Ford lost control of its German plant after the United States entered the war in 1941. Hence, should Ford be held responsible for actions taken by its German subsidiary during World War II? It is well known that Ford played a pivotal role in WWII by supporting the allied forces. The company threw its entire workforce into that unified effort.
To be fair, there is some evidence that Ford supported Germany through a subsidiary in France up to eight months after the war had commenced. That accusation, as well as the adjacent surrounding Ford, was thrown out by the courts; however, based on the expiration of the statute of limitations - not innocence. While the judge did accept Ford's reasonings, I cannot attest to Ford's personal mindset regarding antisemitism - I didn't know him. However, to be fair, there does appear to be legitimacy in claims he expressed antisemitic opinions via actions both prior to and shortly thereafter the US entered the war.
Ford threw a huge amount of manpower and effort into backing the allies to defeat the Germans once the US entered the war. Was it at the inception of US participation or eight months after? I don't know - nor do I know the reasons why. Did Mr. Ford have a right to his opinions and dislikes? Do we?
You keep referring to a few US companies who may or may not have supported Nazi regime. But they didn't represent America; therefore, it wasn't the country - so that's NOT who America is. Or, was.
Let's discuss IRA's involvement - or lack of - throughout the entire war. Let's discuss Irish Minister to Berlin, Charles Bewley: a Quaker who embraced Irish Republicanism and Roman Catholicism. He was notorious for both anti-Semitic and dogmatically Anglophobic. He neither downplayed nor apologized for Jewish persecution, nor, for that matter, Christian oppression. He referred to the “national rebirth of Germany” in an unconcealed endorsement during his accreditation, and recurrently endorsed Nazism as a safeguard against communism ( particularly Soviet ).
He passionately embraced the Republic and was their representative. It's also reported he intervened on Jewish efforts seeking Visas to the relocate to the safety of the Irish Free State from Germany in the 1930's. Ford certainly didn't do that ( though there were unsubstantiated accusations of slave labor ). If he did - it wasn't representing the US, nor was it outwardly blatant.
So I ask you - we can continue this tit-for-tat America vs Ireland via individuals during WWII, or we can focus on TODAY and who these countries are now. The ball is in your court on that.
Now onto my quote you referred to:
"We refused to remain neutral like some countries waiting to see what foot to put down on the fence they straddled"
lepperochan said: do you see what you did there?
Yes; I addressed this in my previous answer. Mirror mirror on the wall . . . and all that jazz.
lepperochan said:I don't think you understand. but I'm delighted you've read into Ireland if even just for a few minutes. I was hoping you'd figure out Ireland entered ww1 with the rest of the UK. the amount of legally held and illegally held guns in the country numbered upwards of about 250,000 and there were more on the way. plus ...the British army was already there. there was no conscription in Ireland, so those who joined up -volunteered- they were among the first to die, and stayed with their neighbours for the duration of the war despite being 'at war' with the Royal family
Firstly, for the sake of discussion, I have been addressing WWII. I have not once stated that Ireland didn't enter WWI. In regards to weapons, this is the part I had to really research, because it's always been my understanding that the IRA was very poorly equipped during WWII. So which period are you referring to? WWI or II? Because I specifically asked:
"How much artillery did Ireland have in 1940? 80 or so machine guns to protect the entire island? Oh sure, you had navel ships protecting ports, but as a whole the republic was poorly equipped to fend off a full-scale invasion."
Is it not a fact that the IRA was ineffectually attempting to procure weapons and ammunition ( among other needs ) from Germany, and the main reason for their neutrality? Who else were they going to secure it from? Had they not, just the previous year ( 1939 ), raided and stolen one million rounds of ammunition from the Irish Army ( most of which was recovered ) because they were in dire need?
Because it's a commonly known fact now that the majority of weapons supplied to the IRA post WWII are American made and orchestrated by Irish Republicans because of the poor stockpile. However, those efforts are being heavily thwarted.
Anyway, it's recorded history by both Germany and England that the IRA was in no serious position to fully defend the Island from an invasion. And there is a source which lists the inventory of machine guns as 80, because I specifically remember reading it. I will find that source - rest assured. I have looked for over 30 minutes but have exhausted my time on it for today.
lepperochan said:the second world war saw the same volume of volunteers from the start until the end. they were again among the first of the British contingent to die, and they stayed there for the duration. the Irish government, being neutral had the right to shoot down any planes which flew into its airspace. ( like what Switzerland done) but never did. the merchant navy acted as lookout for german planes, boats and U-boats . and it was an Irish weather-man who saved D-day from disaster.
In a previous statement you failed to acknowledge I said:
Though to be fair, there were thousands of Irishmen who left the security of neutrality and "volunteered" to fight. They did play their part in defeating Hitler.
I anticipate Germany threatening the republic with nuclear strikes on Dublin had they won the war.
I did hear a story about Churchhill offering Northern Ireland to Dublin after the Nazi's were defeated; however, don't really know all the details.
BTW, did you read a book by Galway historian Bernard Kelly titled, Returning Home? It details the treatment of Irish veterans who returned the end of the second world war. It documents such stories of volunteerism.
The way they were treated was akin to Nam veterans. Very sad.
There were roughly 12,000 Irish volunteers to be exact, as outlined in Galway's book.
No one, especially not me, has claimed Ireland didn't make contributions to WWII. But it was on both sides of the fence. You know - neutrality.
lepperochan said:you talk about the evil of the third Reich yet glorify the same evil which wiped out your own bloodline and stole their land ...like wtf. I don't understand that at all.
Again, my bloodlines are not wiped out. Double the number of Native Americans were in WWII as Irish volunteers. Don't forget that. The Nazi's attempted complete genocide against the Jews - they didn't step in and offer treaties ( albeit shitty ones ) and land as the US administration did. We've grown from 300,000 to 5.2 million since the 1900's - over half of what existed before our country was "founded". Our reservations here are some of the most beautiful in the country, and were granted tribal sovereignty. We govern ourselves, according to our laws and heritage.
There's a HUGE difference in the Nazi's and the US' founding fathers. Both participated in such horrendous acts that were vile and despicable - I'll give you that much; however, it was also the founding fathers who stepped in and stopped it - Germany certainly didn't regarding the Jews. Had Germany not been stopped - the Jews would barely exist. Much less have their own country.
It's amazing what both the Jews and Native Americans have overcome against white "Christians".
lepperochan said: I mentioned the act of union which brought Ireland, Scotland and Wales into a kingdom with England (basically a piece of paper which decreed ownership) and you answered
" Marriages are but a piece of paper too. So are land deeds and car titles. They're still legally applicable"
..yet you talk about your war of independence like some piece of paper didn't decree the King's/ Queens ownership of America
But Northern Ireland is a part of Great Britain - and Southern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland are a part of the United Kingdom.
America is not. Period. We are free and independent of England. We fought and won our freedom. That's why I said what I said the remaining British North American colonies were to the northeast, i.e. - Canada by 1873, joined by Newfoundland in 1949.
lepperochan said:then you said
" Well perhaps we'll become as Ireland; the northern part remaining a part of the US, and the Southern independent"
I'm wondering are you paying attention at all. I thought we'd established the Union of America conceded four states to to the Brittish. I named three of them for you ...smh
I think it's you who aren't paying attention. As a matter of fact, I know it is. Because that statement was in reference to THIS comment you made:
lepperochan said:on top of all that the country appears on the brink of civil war.
""
Let move onto the next quote from me you addressed.
"United States has also been recognized as the world’s most generous nation in the world, whose citizens give more to charity than any other country."
lepperochan said: you're talking about the people. I thought we were talking about the administrations. I think you'll find, if you look it up properly so was Ireland. but again, that's the people not the government. this particular government has very close ties to the fascists movement 'Blue shirts' which threatened to march on Dublin
I addressed this previously:
Ahavati said:Neither of us are responsible for our countries actions; however, you can't refer to the thousands of Irishmen who volunteered for the war ( which I previously credited along with a book, btw ) while discounting the thousands of Americans who give more charity than any other nationality in the world, because both actions were/are independent of the governments they serve.
Though personally I feel the people ARE the country. Or, at least, supposed to be.
I promised you confirmation according to the last world study done.
Ahavati said:As far as top charity givers, the last time I read something I believe Canada and New Zealand were 2nd / 3rd ( not sure if respectively ) with England 4th. I don't know where Ireland placed, but I will check as requested and respond accordingly.
Yeppers!
America has been named as the world’s most generous nation in the world, where its citizens give the most to charity, according to a new report.
The USA, New Zealand and Canada have the highest rate of charitable donations as a percentage gross domestic product (GDP), the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) found.
The UK had the fourth highest rate of charitable donations in a study of 24 nations and topped all other EU countries that were looked at.
CAF’s report took data from countries accounting for around 75 per cent of global GDP and 53 per cent of the world population.
In a previous statement you failed to acknowledge I said:
Though to be fair, there were thousands of Irishmen who left the security of neutrality and "volunteered" to fight. They did play their part in defeating Hitler.
I anticipate Germany threatening the republic with nuclear strikes on Dublin had they won the war.
I did hear a story about Churchhill offering Northern Ireland to Dublin after the Nazi's were defeated; however, don't really know all the details.
BTW, did you read a book by Galway historian Bernard Kelly titled, Returning Home? It details the treatment of Irish veterans who returned the end of the second world war. It documents such stories of volunteerism.
The way they were treated was akin to Nam veterans. Very sad.
There were roughly 12,000 Irish volunteers to be exact, as outlined in Galway's book.
No one, especially not me, has claimed Ireland didn't make contributions to WWII. But it was on both sides of the fence. You know - neutrality.
lepperochan said:you talk about the evil of the third Reich yet glorify the same evil which wiped out your own bloodline and stole their land ...like wtf. I don't understand that at all.
Again, my bloodlines are not wiped out. Double the number of Native Americans were in WWII as Irish volunteers. Don't forget that. The Nazi's attempted complete genocide against the Jews - they didn't step in and offer treaties ( albeit shitty ones ) and land as the US administration did. We've grown from 300,000 to 5.2 million since the 1900's - over half of what existed before our country was "founded". Our reservations here are some of the most beautiful in the country, and were granted tribal sovereignty. We govern ourselves, according to our laws and heritage.
There's a HUGE difference in the Nazi's and the US' founding fathers. Both participated in such horrendous acts that were vile and despicable - I'll give you that much; however, it was also the founding fathers who stepped in and stopped it - Germany certainly didn't regarding the Jews. Had Germany not been stopped - the Jews would barely exist. Much less have their own country.
It's amazing what both the Jews and Native Americans have overcome against white "Christians".
lepperochan said: I mentioned the act of union which brought Ireland, Scotland and Wales into a kingdom with England (basically a piece of paper which decreed ownership) and you answered
" Marriages are but a piece of paper too. So are land deeds and car titles. They're still legally applicable"
..yet you talk about your war of independence like some piece of paper didn't decree the King's/ Queens ownership of America
But Northern Ireland is a part of Great Britain - and Southern Ireland, Wales, and Scotland are a part of the United Kingdom.
America is not. Period. We are free and independent of England. We fought and won our freedom. That's why I said what I said the remaining British North American colonies were to the northeast, i.e. - Canada by 1873, joined by Newfoundland in 1949.
lepperochan said:then you said
" Well perhaps we'll become as Ireland; the northern part remaining a part of the US, and the Southern independent"
I'm wondering are you paying attention at all. I thought we'd established the Union of America conceded four states to to the Brittish. I named three of them for you ...smh
I think it's you who aren't paying attention. As a matter of fact, I know it is. Because that statement was in reference to THIS comment you made:
lepperochan said:on top of all that the country appears on the brink of civil war.
"
" Let move onto the next quote from me you addressed.
"United States has also been recognized as the world’s most generous nation in the world, whose citizens give more to charity than any other country."
lepperochan said: you're talking about the people. I thought we were talking about the administrations. I think you'll find, if you look it up properly so was Ireland. but again, that's the people not the government. this particular government has very close ties to the fascists movement 'Blue shirts' which threatened to march on Dublin
I addressed this previously:
Ahavati said:Neither of us are responsible for our countries actions; however, you can't refer to the thousands of Irishmen who volunteered for the war ( which I previously credited along with a book, btw ) while discounting the thousands of Americans who give more charity than any other nationality in the world, because both actions were/are independent of the governments they serve.
Though personally I feel the people ARE the country. Or, at least, supposed to be.
I promised you confirmation according to the last world study done.
Ahavati said:As far as top charity givers, the last time I read something I believe Canada and New Zealand were 2nd / 3rd ( not sure if respectively ) with England 4th. I don't know where Ireland placed, but I will check as requested and respond accordingly.
Yeppers!
America has been named as the world’s most generous nation in the world, where its citizens give the most to charity, according to a new report.
The USA, New Zealand and Canada have the highest rate of charitable donations as a percentage gross domestic product (GDP), the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF) found.
The UK had the fourth highest rate of charitable donations in a study of 24 nations and topped all other EU countries that were looked at.
CAF’s report took data from countries accounting for around 75 per cent of global GDP and 53 per cent of the world population.
Now onto my final quote:
"You might want to clean up your own doorstep before attempting to diss another's."
lepperochan said:I have no control over what my governments have done so I don't really see I've a doorstep to clean. nor you for that matter. I'm attempting to use facts to illustrate why my opinion of American administrations is the way it is. I appreciate you are also trying to use facts, and you are finding a few, but you're not giving yourself an understanding of what you're reading before you pass it on here and that shows in the way you're presenting it. plus
Well finally.
I'm sorry if my presentation fails your approval, but at least I am presenting verses speculating that you know nothing about history - or what you're talking about.
I do love how you evade certain parts of the conversation - like WHY America wars with nations, as though that's not important. The important part you like to tout is that there is nothing to us but war - that's all we are. Oh, and a musician.
lepperochan said:so far, America is war
surely there must be something more to the country.
Willie Nelson is America
Seriously?
And you refer to MY presentation? As though your country - or the United Kingdom would exist today without the United States? And, for that matter, the United States might not exist had Germany won.
So don't refer to who we are when you exist in part because of us - and we because of you. We all did what we felt best to survive - those countries who chose to fight - and those who didn't.*
*Disclaimer: Referring to administrations, NOT volunteers.
I repeat:
Who is America?!
America IS war: we refused to remain neutral in WWI for the good of mankind. We refused to remain neutral in WWII for the good of mankind. We refused to turn our backs on the fight against communism in Korea and Vietnam. We fought to liberate Kuwait, and so on, and so on. . .
Damn straight we're warriors born and bred. Our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, and brothers and sisters, are THERE when you need us to help your country prevail against evil.
But we're also LOVE ( i.e. - the largest givers of charity in the world ).
THAT is who AMERICA is and Americans are at heart despite her current leadership.
Hey - it's not my problem there's a word limit so I had to break it up into segments.
If you wish to continue this debate - then I suggest you address the segments in sequence as I have done - any more hopping around and evading certain aspects will garner silence on my part.
"You might want to clean up your own doorstep before attempting to diss another's."
lepperochan said:I have no control over what my governments have done so I don't really see I've a doorstep to clean. nor you for that matter. I'm attempting to use facts to illustrate why my opinion of American administrations is the way it is. I appreciate you are also trying to use facts, and you are finding a few, but you're not giving yourself an understanding of what you're reading before you pass it on here and that shows in the way you're presenting it. plus
Well finally.
I'm sorry if my presentation fails your approval, but at least I am presenting verses speculating that you know nothing about history - or what you're talking about.
I do love how you evade certain parts of the conversation - like WHY America wars with nations, as though that's not important. The important part you like to tout is that there is nothing to us but war - that's all we are. Oh, and a musician.
lepperochan said:so far, America is war
surely there must be something more to the country.
Willie Nelson is America
Seriously?
And you refer to MY presentation? As though your country - or the United Kingdom would exist today without the United States? And, for that matter, the United States might not exist had Germany won.
So don't refer to who we are when you exist in part because of us - and we because of you. We all did what we felt best to survive - those countries who chose to fight - and those who didn't.*
*Disclaimer: Referring to administrations, NOT volunteers.
I repeat:
Who is America?!
America IS war: we refused to remain neutral in WWI for the good of mankind. We refused to remain neutral in WWII for the good of mankind. We refused to turn our backs on the fight against communism in Korea and Vietnam. We fought to liberate Kuwait, and so on, and so on. . .
Damn straight we're warriors born and bred. Our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, uncles and aunts, and brothers and sisters, are THERE when you need us to help your country prevail against evil.
But we're also LOVE ( i.e. - the largest givers of charity in the world ).
THAT is who AMERICA is and Americans are at heart despite her current leadership.
Hey - it's not my problem there's a word limit so I had to break it up into segments.
If you wish to continue this debate - then I suggest you address the segments in sequence as I have done - any more hopping around and evading certain aspects will garner silence on my part.
Ahavati said:
I don't see anything relating to what we do offsite, or anything requiring we list where else we choose to write. Seems that would be our personal business?
Since when? Since when you were a mod and were very active in getting people to disclose other DUP accounts as well as other online profiles, because of all the plagiarism allegations between different websites as well as here .
I’ll bring it before the current mod staff to address this because perhaps it got overlooked when this particular part of our site’s requirements was written up, but I do recall that disclosure of other online profiles elsewhere was discussed as a means to clarify cases of suspected plagiarism .
I don't see anything relating to what we do offsite, or anything requiring we list where else we choose to write. Seems that would be our personal business?
Since when? Since when you were a mod and were very active in getting people to disclose other DUP accounts as well as other online profiles, because of all the plagiarism allegations between different websites as well as here .
I’ll bring it before the current mod staff to address this because perhaps it got overlooked when this particular part of our site’s requirements was written up, but I do recall that disclosure of other online profiles elsewhere was discussed as a means to clarify cases of suspected plagiarism .
MadameLavender said:
Since when? Since when you were a mod and were very active in getting people to disclose other DUP accounts as well as other online profiles, because of all the plagiarism allegations between different websites as well as here .
I’ll bring it before the current mod staff to address this because perhaps it got overlooked when this particular part of our site’s requirements was written up, but I do recall that disclosure of other online profiles elsewhere was discussed as a means to clarify cases of suspected plagiarism .
That's not how I understood what we were doing. We can't force people to disclose what they do outside of this website - only within it.
If we suspected plagiarism, or it was reported - the person would be required to disclose proof of a timestamp they authored it first, or they were the actual author of the listing on an alternate site.
But to list on their profiles where else they write? I don't think so.
Some people write anonymously on alternate sites to garner fresh insights. I used to but don't any longer. To force them to disclose that seems like an infringement on their privacy.
The only issue DUP should have is plagiarism on DUP, direct or reported.
Since when? Since when you were a mod and were very active in getting people to disclose other DUP accounts as well as other online profiles, because of all the plagiarism allegations between different websites as well as here .
I’ll bring it before the current mod staff to address this because perhaps it got overlooked when this particular part of our site’s requirements was written up, but I do recall that disclosure of other online profiles elsewhere was discussed as a means to clarify cases of suspected plagiarism .
That's not how I understood what we were doing. We can't force people to disclose what they do outside of this website - only within it.
If we suspected plagiarism, or it was reported - the person would be required to disclose proof of a timestamp they authored it first, or they were the actual author of the listing on an alternate site.
But to list on their profiles where else they write? I don't think so.
Some people write anonymously on alternate sites to garner fresh insights. I used to but don't any longer. To force them to disclose that seems like an infringement on their privacy.
The only issue DUP should have is plagiarism on DUP, direct or reported.
Ahavati said:
That's not how I understood what we were doing. We can't force people to disclose what they do outside of this website - only within it.
If we suspected plagiarism, or it was reported - the person would be required to disclose proof of a timestamp they authored it first, or they were the actual author of the listing on an alternate site.
But to list on their profiles where else they write? I don't think so.
Some people write anonymously on alternate sites to garner fresh insights. I used to but don't any longer. To force them to disclose that seems like an infringement on their privacy.
The only issue DUP should have is plagiarism on DUP, direct or reported.
It would be an infringement, as some people who are trolled at DUP would not want their trolls to know the other sites they post at and as who. I would never agree to listing my other site personnas and where publicly in my profile here. Plagiarism can still be investigated and rooted out without Mods sharing that information or members having to broadcast it.
That's not how I understood what we were doing. We can't force people to disclose what they do outside of this website - only within it.
If we suspected plagiarism, or it was reported - the person would be required to disclose proof of a timestamp they authored it first, or they were the actual author of the listing on an alternate site.
But to list on their profiles where else they write? I don't think so.
Some people write anonymously on alternate sites to garner fresh insights. I used to but don't any longer. To force them to disclose that seems like an infringement on their privacy.
The only issue DUP should have is plagiarism on DUP, direct or reported.
It would be an infringement, as some people who are trolled at DUP would not want their trolls to know the other sites they post at and as who. I would never agree to listing my other site personnas and where publicly in my profile here. Plagiarism can still be investigated and rooted out without Mods sharing that information or members having to broadcast it.
Hullo, and thanks
There's a list on Wikipedia, lists all the wars / conflicts US has been in. since the late 1700s
If you believe America is war then that list will certainly add weight to your beliefs.
in 1940 the IRA were more ot less obsolete. they weren't even that aggressive in terms of conflict. it was more a period of trying to improve community, culture etc
they only really re-emerged in the late 60s early 70s when brittish paratroopers opened fire on a civil rights march. and prodestant gangs and paramilitaries burned Catholics out of their homes.
then died out again until around 80' when the beautiful soul of Margret Thatcher fanned the flames
it was the Irish national (-free state-) army who were charged with defence. the actual army which had previously held the brittish to a truce was ripped apart during the civil war
the man who led that army, Michael Collins had been assassinated by (many believe) Eamonn Dev who had double crossed him in a most disgusting manner
There's a list on Wikipedia, lists all the wars / conflicts US has been in. since the late 1700s
If you believe America is war then that list will certainly add weight to your beliefs.
in 1940 the IRA were more ot less obsolete. they weren't even that aggressive in terms of conflict. it was more a period of trying to improve community, culture etc
they only really re-emerged in the late 60s early 70s when brittish paratroopers opened fire on a civil rights march. and prodestant gangs and paramilitaries burned Catholics out of their homes.
then died out again until around 80' when the beautiful soul of Margret Thatcher fanned the flames
it was the Irish national (-free state-) army who were charged with defence. the actual army which had previously held the brittish to a truce was ripped apart during the civil war
the man who led that army, Michael Collins had been assassinated by (many believe) Eamonn Dev who had double crossed him in a most disgusting manner
Ahavati said:
That's not how I understood what we were doing. We can't force people to disclose what they do outside of this website - only within it.
If we suspected plagiarism, or it was reported - the person would be required to disclose proof of a timestamp they authored it first, or they were the actual author of the listing on an alternate site.
But to list on their profiles where else they write? I don't think so.
Some people write anonymously on alternate sites to garner fresh insights. I used to but don't any longer. To force them to disclose that seems like an infringement on their privacy.
The only issue DUP should have is plagiarism on DUP, direct or reported.
Well, I don’t keep extensive records on every conversation I’ve ever participated in online, so I have nothing in print to reference, so to avoid further derailing the thread, I’ll leave this as : topic addressed and point noted.
That's not how I understood what we were doing. We can't force people to disclose what they do outside of this website - only within it.
If we suspected plagiarism, or it was reported - the person would be required to disclose proof of a timestamp they authored it first, or they were the actual author of the listing on an alternate site.
But to list on their profiles where else they write? I don't think so.
Some people write anonymously on alternate sites to garner fresh insights. I used to but don't any longer. To force them to disclose that seems like an infringement on their privacy.
The only issue DUP should have is plagiarism on DUP, direct or reported.
Well, I don’t keep extensive records on every conversation I’ve ever participated in online, so I have nothing in print to reference, so to avoid further derailing the thread, I’ll leave this as : topic addressed and point noted.
Anonymous
There are literally so many offensive things in this thread about the United Kingdom I don’t even know where to start. So I won’t.
However, the Irish deffinitly do their own thing over there. They probably feel the same way about the English. Same with the Scottish and the Welsh. Funnily enough, our close proximity UK banter is what the British Isles are about.
America has very little sense of humour. It’s the saddest thing.
However, the Irish deffinitly do their own thing over there. They probably feel the same way about the English. Same with the Scottish and the Welsh. Funnily enough, our close proximity UK banter is what the British Isles are about.
America has very little sense of humour. It’s the saddest thing.
Anonymous
Little sense of other nation’s humour, sweet.
Miss_Sub said:There are literally so many offensive things in this thread about the United Kingdom I don’t even know where to start. So I won’t.
However, the Irish deffinitly do their own thing over there. They probably feel the same way about the English. Same with the Scottish and the Welsh. Funnily enough, our close proximity UK banter is what the British Isles are about.
America has very little sense of humour. It’s the saddest thing.
Firstly, I see nothing offensive about the United Kingdom in this thread.
'British humour' a different language. America has plenty of humor - we have some of the best stand-up comics in the world - and most of the people have a great sense of humor. Having lived in England for almost a decade, I will tell say that British humour is different. It's almost like a foreign language - how the heck can an American who has never traveled nor interacted with it expected to understand it?
When I moved back to America in my teens - 90% of my 'British Humour' was met with either a blank stare, or it pissed an American off. Then I realized I didn't just understand American humor anymore than they understood British (having moved at too young an age to ). Now I understand both - especially the dripping sarcasm so often portrayed as colloquial.
Americans have plenty of humor - many British just don't understand it.
Sigh. Sad indeed.
However, the Irish deffinitly do their own thing over there. They probably feel the same way about the English. Same with the Scottish and the Welsh. Funnily enough, our close proximity UK banter is what the British Isles are about.
America has very little sense of humour. It’s the saddest thing.
Firstly, I see nothing offensive about the United Kingdom in this thread.
'British humour' a different language. America has plenty of humor - we have some of the best stand-up comics in the world - and most of the people have a great sense of humor. Having lived in England for almost a decade, I will tell say that British humour is different. It's almost like a foreign language - how the heck can an American who has never traveled nor interacted with it expected to understand it?
When I moved back to America in my teens - 90% of my 'British Humour' was met with either a blank stare, or it pissed an American off. Then I realized I didn't just understand American humor anymore than they understood British (having moved at too young an age to ). Now I understand both - especially the dripping sarcasm so often portrayed as colloquial.
Americans have plenty of humor - many British just don't understand it.
Sigh. Sad indeed.
