What according to you are the greatest contributions of US to human civilization? According to me the list goes like this:
2. Information Technology
3. Space Science
1. Constitutional Republics
2. A progressive legal system
3. The concept of liberty, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech
Rock-n-Roll, Harley Davidson and Budweiser
1. Jazz & Blues
2. Maker's Mark
3. Huckleberry Finn
Assembly line landfill garbage is not exactly a contribution, but nevertheless it is what will be left when the Gorgon is gone.
I can tell you what the worst thing we have givin the world is... "Democracy", pure poison.
'fraid the Greeks beat you to it by a few millennia
The Greeks did not push it throughout the world with the vim and vigor of the American Leftists and Progressives. i am quite certain America has propagated that BS ideology more than the Greeks could ever have thought to.
I feel bad for all those people the American Left and Progressives have delluded into mob rule.
Do watch out for those reds under your bed.
There are no Reds under my bed, John.
They are in the White House, Congress, and many a Govt Agencies, Colleges and Universities, and Left wing and Progressive groups...
But most definitely not under my bed.
They do come up with the strangest comments don't they?
Don't they just!
How anybody can think that such a right wing country as the US is run by the left is beyond me.
I have grown used to it, Repair.
I understand that they have no facts to back thier shit up wth so they attack Mccarthy.
It is actually quite funny that I have reduced them all to attacking a 50 year dead man.
And they cannot even support that... even with all the BS Leftists propaganda against McCarthy they still fall on thier faces in failure in the attempt.
It is hysterical.
Leant Leftists are just too funny.
Just an observation...When the MSM started using color-coded maps during national elections to define democratic and republican leaning states why did they use red for republican and blue for democratic states..?
It would seem logical that the colors would be reversed...
It is all in the twisting of anything to do with commies away from the left.
Language minipulation is well covered in the frankfurt agenda, PC, etc...
You would be surprised how changing the meanings of words and tagging certain things to certain groups and individuals can change the public perception.
PC is a tool used by the Leftist Progressives to pull our nation one way, while covering themselves through re-writing history and roles. thus the reason America is taught as the great evil of the world and Stalin and Mao are taught to be great men. And that is right in American schools and universities.
It is not very confusing John when you realize European left and Right is not the same as American Left and Right. you all would like to ignore that... but it is an inescapable fact.
Then why do you keep bringing Europe into the argument if you and they are totally different? Come to that,why the soviets, Mao, Marx et al if as you say they are al different?
Our political spectrum is different, john. Not the ideologies, except for Conservatism.
We have Anarchists, Communists, Marxists, Socialists, liberals, Progressives (Eu. Conservatives), and true or American Conservatives, and Libertarians.
Europe has no true conservatives, though you will claim they do.
Even those you consider "Right-wing", Hitler, Musollini, were in fact Socialists. American independents and conservatives see that... only you who want to distance yourselves from their evil, do not.
Come on then show me how Hitler was a socialist! He kept it very well hid, perhaps that's why it's only known to the chosen few!
It strikes me that you are the ones in denial.
So you want me to repost the info i have posted for you to ignore ten times already?
I think not.
Google "Ludwig von Mises and Hayek, NAZIs were Socialists".... you will find plenty of info.
Oh but I am sure you do not trust the Austrian School to be honest since they were totally opposed to your Keynesian economics BS.
It is simple math john. Statism = Collectivism, add central authority, and "poof" you're a Socialist.
And does it matter if hitler and Musollini were Socialists? you can deny them but your boys Stalin Mao, Castro, Che, they were all yours and slaughtered more people then hitler could have dreamed of.
it amazes me how hitler is looked upon as so evil, when the Leftist heroes have slaughtered a hundred times more than he.
But then again i am well aware of the history of the frankfurt school and hitler and thier hatred for the fuhrer after he outed them and ran them from Germany. So who better to make a right-wing conservative and demonize.
In your book maybe, but not in the book of any socialist that I know. What you describe sounds much more like capitalism to me. State capitalism maybe but not socialism.
Remember under that great socialist Hitler, workers wages were not increased but cut. He believed in a strong military, unlike socialists. And boy, did he believe in patriotism, just like so many right wing Americans.
And did the workers in Germany really own the means of production under Hitler?
Wasn't he a great trade unionist as well? No, wait, he abolished trade unions, just as the right in the US wish to do.
And didn't he say that those who would not work should die, just like the American right.
Wasn't it you that said
"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction."
Oops, sorry, that was Hitler.
Come on stop giving me biased sources and you tell me why you think Hitler was a socialist.
I have explained it to you over and over in a few threads, John.
And I have a feeling you ognored everything I said just so you could say... "tell me why you think"... round and round.
And Hayek and Mises are not biased sources, they are just in opposition to your entire mind-set.
But no, you haven't explained why when there are so many similarities between Hitler and the American right, Hitler was a socialist.
Hayek and Mises are not only in opposition to my mindset, they are in opposition to every right thinking person who actually understands socialism.
Oh I get it, no one but the Socialists truely understand Socialism... pretty nifty trick you all got going on there.
I didn't say that, I suggested that those opposed to socialism were maybe not the best teachers.
Come on, explain to me how destroying trade unions was a socialist act.
In-fighting among Socialist has been going on for a long time, John. You did read my post on Socialism. Didn't you?
Not all Socialists agree about all things.
Different breeds of the same critter.
So, explain to me how destroying trade unions was a socialist act.
It is called, "erradicating the compitition".
For Hitler there could only be one seat of power, and only he was to occupy it. To Hitler the State was the representation of the "people" the "collective", -Not the Unions-, and he, Hitler, the representation of the State, and by extension the "people".
Again the answer is simple, John.
You should already be aware of these things.
So where is the socialism in that?
I'm blowed if I can see it anywhere, what you describe does not fit with any known form of socialism.
That has got to be the lamest thing I have ever heard you say.
That is like saying where is the dog in the fight, how is this a dog fight? While you watch as two dogs fight.
I will write that up to you just playing games and not having anything better to ask.
No, I'm deadly serious there is nothing socialist in what you described. In fact it does bear more resemblance to a dog fight than socialism.
oh please. If two Communists fight it out for power, that doesn't mean they are not communists. Two Capitalists fight it out, that doesn't mean they are not capitalists... one thing is not mutually exclusive to the other.
I know you are just playing at being that lost.
So how does that prove that Hitler was a socialist?
You really only have as a basis for your claim "because I say so", won't wash though.
Tell me, Hitler was against the Unions and so are you, that obviously makes you a socialist then!
We have already been through that. Your refusal to accept any showing of such does not equate to it being false.
This is as regards your assertion that because two people of the same idiology fight, they cannot be that ideology.
Which is plain wrong.
There are internal battles in all Orgs, Cos, Ideologies, Parties, etc...
Your foolish assertion is what this is about... not Hitler.
Like you said... no one but a Socialist understands Socialism. No economist, unless he is a proponent of Socialism, knows about Socialism.
And like I said... that is a nifty trick.
Rubbish, you have done nothing to prove that Hitler was a socialist, saying that people who share an ideology may fight does not automatically prove that that ideology is socialism.
And you haven't explained why being anti union makes Hitler a socialist but it doesn't make you one.
As I said Earlier... go read the links I provided and have fun. I am not going to repeat myself over and over for you.
And i did not say two people/parties fighting, made them any ideology. Tha\t would be more of your foolishness. Like your assertion that they fighting makes them not that ideology.
You doing okay tonight? You seem a lil off tilt with these half-cocked, 2nd grade spin questions.
You can't even keep your own spin and twistings straight.
"In 1944, Ludwig von Mises published one of his least-known masterworks: Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War. Drawing on his prewar experience in Vienna, watching the rise of the national socialists in Germany (the Nazis), who would eventually take over his own homeland, he set out to draw parallels between the Russian and German experience with socialism.
It was common in those days, as it is in ours, to identify the Communists as leftist and the Nazis as rightists, as if they stood on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. But Mises knew differently. They both sported the same ideological pedigree of socialism. "The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."
"Reimann quotes from a businessman's letter: "You have no idea how far state control goes and how much power the Nazi representatives have over our work. The worst of it is that they are so ignorant. These Nazi radicals think of nothing except ‘distributing the wealth.' Some businessmen have even started studying Marxist theories, so that they will have a better understanding of the present economic system.
"While state representatives are busily engaged in investigating and interfering, our agents and salesmen are handicapped because they never know whether or not a sale at a higher price will mean denunciation as a ‘profiteer' or ‘saboteur,' followed by a prison sentence. You cannot imagine how taxation has increased. Yet everyone is afraid to complain. Everywhere there is a growing undercurrent of bitterness. Everyone has his doubts about the system, unless he is very young, very stupid, or is bound to it by the privileges he enjoys."
"The German and Russian systems of socialism have in common the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer's goods for his consumption."
And that is no more socialism than the American system.
You keep quoting me examples from people who either have no more idea of what socialism is, or who wish to hide it as a threat to their way.
Capitalism in its ultimate form is one of the contributions of America to the rest of the world. Nobody can turn America into a socialist country... if the US economy has to revive that is only possible following a capitalist way, that's why Obama-nomics should be kept aside in the next Presidential election by American voters.
Did anyone see Bill Maher's spoof on internet discussion forums?
"It always goes like this... never fails:
Obama is a Socialist
Yeah, well Bush is a war criminal
And then the inevitable voice; Vote for Ron Paul"
ahahaha--pretty right, right?
The Simpsons and American Dad have made huge contributions to human civilisation by giving Americans a good look at both sides of itself.
With a lot of these things people from places other than America were also engaged in trying to develop them; but America has certainly also made substantial contributions when it comes to things like:
The electric light bulb, the telephone, the airplane, the lightning rod, the television, automation, space exploration, medicine, science in general, aid/charity to people who need it in other countries (one study a few years ago showed that individual American citizens make enough personal contributions to charities around the world that that it amounts to more than contributions from foundations, the government, private industry, etc combined). Maybe this is not exclusively American, but US agencies are sending food (for example a peanut-butter paste) that is bringing impoverished babies and children back from the brink of starvation. There's an American group of mothers who are donating mother's milk to starving infants in Africa as well.) All the stuff mentioned here is just a few of many things if the question is whether or not America contributes anything to the world.
Then again, if the question is what contributions can be uniquely and exclusively attributed only to America in its 235 years of existence then that, of course, would change the answers here. There was a whole lot of world and history that existed before America became a country. Still, I don't think it's done all that badly (in terms of contributions, exclusive or otherwise, to the world.
I don't want to come across like a "flag-waving, blinders-wearing, patriotic-type" (Heaven forbid!), but sometimes (especially, maybe, on this site, a lot of people seem to have those blinders on when it comes to not wanting to see anything positive about America, or else they just won't dare say anything positive because they're either afraid they'll bring about the wrath or scorn of someone else, or else they'll offend someone. (Of course, a lot of people younger than, say, 35 (even 40) or so, don't really even really recall much about a world or history before the invention of the Internet. They haven't spent too many adult years without it, if at all. That may explain the apparent "not noticing" of a whole lot of things about some types of contributions that have taken place before, and beyond, the Internet.)
(By the way, how did this thread turn into being about Hitler??? Hitler was neither American nor someone who "made a contribution to the world". )
by AnnCee 10 years ago
NEVER HAS THERE BEEN SO LITTLE DIVERSITY WITHIN AMERICA'S UPPER CRUST. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 16 months ago
In the midst of the American sociopolitical discussions, what do Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Retrogressives, & Rightists want for American society? What are the specifics goals that Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Retrogressives, & Rightists...
by ga anderson 14 months ago
I hope that this does not turn into another Trump thread, but, since his name is mentioned I hold no illusions that it will not.The quote is relative to an article about changing eras between traditional conservatism and political correctness and progressivism.Progressive columnist William Galston...
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/books … amp;st=cse“All modern American literature,” Ernest Hemingway once wrote, “comes from one book by Mark Twain called ‘Huckleberry Finn.’ ” ...Controversies over “Huckleberry Finn” occur with predictable regularity. In 2009, just before Barack Obama’s...
by mintinfo 11 years ago
Is religion responsible for human civilization
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|