He quotes JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

He says that's a lie.  I'm not sure how a statement that's a call to action can possibly be a lie, but that's his belief.

He complains that other citizens aren't doing what JFK wanted us to do ("do for your country"), so him doing that is just allowing others to do whatever else they do.

He spends most of time complaining that the country doesn't do anything for him.

Isn't that what JFK said not to do?  Seems like he expects the country to do ... something ... for him specifically, which is literally asking what the country can do for him.  He even admits that's what he's saying at the end of the article.

He pretends to have lived by JFK's "lie", yet he's disappointed that somehow the country still owes him something.

His entire pity party can be encapsulated in his line: "...I’m not sure I ever understood America to begin with."

He's complaining something isn't living up to his idea of what it should do without ever being taught -- or learning on his own -- what that something was designed to do.  Imagine buying a car and complaining it doesn't fly.  Or that your new washing machine doesn't clean the house.

I think his expectations were shaped based on a Liberal education system that preaches dependence on government to solve all our problems.  After all, that's how most politicians get elected -- promising to make our lives better, give us stuff or solve hard problems.

I'm only a decade older than him, but in my life, I was taught independence, working to achieve what i wanted, and how my individual successes make the country better if for no other reason than no one else is being forced to meet my needs.

I would counter his BS with one observation:  the country he is disappointed in has evolved into what it is precisely because our governments (Federal, state & local) have attempted to enact laws and programs to give us the things government is not supposed to be doing.  That shortsightedness has caused people to become dependent on the government, and government to become so massive it's being crushed under its own weight.

He doesn't understand that he's had a successful career as an actor, comedian and writer.  None of that produces anything anyone needs, yet he's not been forced into a life of poverty in order to do what he enjoys/loves.

Maybe we need to cut back on government grants for arts and entertainment so these entitled brats can contribute something useful to the country.  That might be more fulfilling than a life spent in fantasy land.

 

I'm afraid you've misjudged me ....

I'm confused.

What does the state of the US military have to do with the redacted CDC analysis?

Yes, I am.

Your Google search should have started with the differences between Constitutional and Democratic Republics and which of the two correlates to the U.S. form of Republicanism, rather than citing the first article to prove yourself correct; an article, mind you, contributed by someone who is a big fan of Obama and his politics, nonetheless.

There are major differences between Democratic and Constitutional Republics that should be understood if you want to be an expert on Republicanism.

I have never met a single person who believes the U.S. is a literal empire, as in the case of nation states that has direct sovereign control over the territories it has influence over. I'm not sure why you are hyper focused on trying to prove yourself right through literal definitions, because it's obvious that people substitute empire interchangeably with imperialistic power because it's easier to say.

Just at you can get your dopamine rush for the day, I will amend my statement and call the U.S. an imperial power instead of an empire going forward.

"Imperialism can be defined as a doctrine, political strategy, practice, state policy, or advocacy that consists in extending power by territorial acquisition or by extending political and economic control outward over other areas. Imperialism oftentimes involves the use of military and economic power, and always aims for more expansion and collective or individual domination."

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/imperialism#:~:text=Imperialism%20can%20be%20defined%20as,control%20outward%20over%20other%20areas.)

"The focus of the critique is not just U.S. military power, which is overwhelmingly dominant, but also U.S. cultural influence (rock music, movies, styles of dress and behavior), U.S. political power, which forces countries to change political institutions and practices they would often rather not change, and U.S. economic influences, which force countries to adopt neoliberal policies that often hurt their economies but work to the economic advantage of the United States itself. In all these areas the United States presumes like an old uncle to know best for the rest of the world."

(https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/empire-and-imperialism-united-states)

But please tell us how the U.S. doesn't use it's political, economic or military influence to "motivate" other nations to do what it wants, or to put it's nose in everyone's business, thereby disqualifying it from meeting the criteria for being imperialistic.

The first thing you need to realize is I don't give a shit what you think of me.  That should be obvious by now -- even to you.

If you can't have a discussion without trying to insult me, then i guess you need therapy.  I can't help you there.

I'll point out two things you said as patently ridiculous:

#1

"I have never met a single person who believes the U.S. is a literal empire."

If a debate/disagreement were to hinge on ones tally of the number of people he met who believes something, then he's lost whatever credibility he had.  That's less than anecdotal.

#2

"But please tell us how the U.S. doesn't use it's political, economic or military influence to "motivate" other nations to do what it wants, or to put it's nose in everyone's business, thereby disqualifying it from meeting the criteria for being imperialistic."


I guess you never learned the difference between actually being something versus being like something.

Calling someone foolish (i.e. like a fool / doing foolish things) is NOT the same as being called a fool.

Same is true for "imperialistic" versus "empire."  A nation can demonstrate imperialistic characteristics or actions and still not be an empire.

I think I said it correctly the first time.
I take a rather dark view of USA Democrat dominated politics.
 

From the NRA website (for whatever that's worth  ):

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans
Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle
Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote
and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine
editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871,
the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the
former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. senator, became the fledgling NRA's
first president.

https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/

I was unaware there were any slaves in New York in 1871 when the NRA was formed. 

In fact, NY started their official emancipation of slaves in 1799 and completed it in 1827 -- long before the Civil War started in 1861 and before the NRA existed.

Hard to teach slaves to shoot when there aren't any in the state.  I highly doubt the slave-owning states would have agreed to teach their slaves to defend themselves, either.

They look great!

Ummm.....what's with the toy grenade in the background.......

That ukoy is da bomb?

 

I thought clowns belong in the movies and in the circus.

I guess not.

A woman would get kicked out of court for wearing that crap.  But a trans is tolerated because no judge would go there.

The scales of justice will never be balanced again.  And they might as well take the blindfold off.  They can clearly see the bias but do nothing about it.

While they're at it throw the f*ckn scale away.

S/he is a public defender.  if I were arrested and assigned that ... defender, I would tell the judge I'll be defending myself.

What a sh!t show our country's institutions have become.

Actually NRA was created to teach slaves how to shoot.
All the rest of us already knew how.
 

Slaves?  Or former slaves?

Not sure you have your facts straight.

I grew up in Western Pa. a long time ago. Saved my paper route money and bought a Remington Nylon .22 Every weekend I would spend my .75 cent tip money for a box of .22 long rifle. Cleaning supplies....Singer sewing machine oil(borrowed from Mum) Coat hanger with a tip made from lead. Only my opinion but my experience gave me a big advantage when Uncle sent me to a place where I needed a firearm. Training helps,but experience can save your ass!

You just demonstrated the whole reason the NRA was created.  Training civilians in a time of peace so they had firearm skills and experience should they ever need to fight for the country was their primary purpose.

Too bad the NRA doesn't sponsor "range packages" so people can more easily afford to get professional training at their local range.

i'd like to see them offer a $10-$20 package to include ammo, a rental firearm, firing range access, and an instructor.  It should also include a safety class that satisfies the individual's state training requirements if any, and a certificate of training if they pass a proficiency test.

Seems the main thing the NRA does is beg for money -- over and over again.  Unless one pays for an NRA-certified course, those dues offer no benefit toward training.

Swoosh...   

The slogan Don't Tread on Me is a warning, not a statement of current conditions.

Just saying.