RE: Generation Gap (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

kdsub -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 2:29:19 PM)

quote:

I disagree. The entire history of the US has been built on seeking new territories by force. Back in 1607, what would eventually become the US was nothing more than a tiny village on the east coast of Virginia. We got much, much bigger. How do you suppose that happened?


First we were not the United States then... another imperial nation. Second The vast majority of the US was not conquered but purchased from other imperial countries. Third many native American nations sold vast areas of land to the US. Fourth although there is much to me ashamed of in the treatment of Native American tribes in our history they still have direct ownership of over 56,000,000 acres. How many Imperial Nations of the past have allowed that?

Butch



tj444 -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 2:37:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

As a millennial myself I completely agree we have our faults, too many of us are obsessed with our phones and the internet, care too much about looks and not enough about important issues and actually connecting with each other. But it's difficult to move forward in a world when there is a wall of shit in the way left behind by the earlier generations. Many of the pathways to success many baby boomers took advantage of, or the lack of roadblocks, simply dont exist for my generation. Now, thankfully for me my area of focus will involve cleaning up and managing the problem created by past generations, namely the environmental industry, so I'd like to think that this industry is going to see more expansion as the world moves toward a more greener future. But I gotto say, it sucks knowing that I will have to work twice as hard to get what my parents did at my age. I personally dont know exactly how this could be changed to give my generation a better fighting chance, all I know is what I have to do going forward to make a life for myself, and it isn't going to be as easy as the older folks claim it is.


Its demographics... the boomer bulge created prosperity and the increase in the stock market, the housing market, consumer purchasing of all those new households, etc.. but now we arent even reproducing enough kids to replace ourselves and so now we are on a downward slope.. there are only 2 solutions, either bribe people to have more kids or increase immigration..



OsideGirl -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 2:55:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


When I saw how many parents were raising their kids in 90s, it was almost the polar opposite of what I had seen in the 70s. Parents were doting on their kids left and right, smothering them and overprotecting them. They were so afraid of what was out in the world that they gave their kids all kinds of toys and video games to keep them inside, where it's safe and warm. This is about the same time those "Baby on Board" signs started popping up. They never had anything like that when I was a kid. It's things like that which likely had an effect on the Millennials' upbringing. Their parents and that generation treated them like they were the center of the universe all while they were growing up, and now they wonder why they're acting that way now.




It's showing up in the workplace as well. From an article in the Chicago Tribune:

quote:


•Young employees have overoptimistic expectations about how quickly they'll be able to climb the corporate ladder.

*One HR professional set up interviews for two millennial candidates with the CEO of a multibillion-dollar company. Not only did they both cancel at the last minute, they asked if the interview could be done over Skype instead of in person, because it was too inconvenient to travel from the East to West Coast.

•Millennials' sense of entitlement is frustrating. As one HR professional noted, the younger employees feel that they are owed more respect, opportunity and pay than their experience, ability or knowledge merit.

•Millennials lack face-to-face communication skills. Noting that this age demographic is most comfortable texting and can often seem socially inept, those surveyed say it borders on an avoidant society. Still other survey respondents say they are concerned with millennials' need for flexible working conditions, including where and when they get work done.

•Millennials' work ethic is troublesome. Besides wanting to work remotely from Starbucks, millennials are often unwilling to put in more than 40 hours a week. Their propensity for leaving the office early — according to one respondent, for a 3 p.m. yoga class — is particularly problematic.


I think the biggest thing I see from that generation is the reliance on technology. For the most part, it has replaced interaction with the world at large. Hell, most prefer texting over talking on the cell phone.




thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 2:57:53 PM)


ORIGINAL: kdsub

First we were not the United States then... another imperial nation. Second The vast majority of the US was not conquered but purchased from other imperial countries.

Not true. With the exception of alaska and the virgin islands every inch of amerika was taken at the point of a gun or the threat there of.


Third many native American nations sold vast areas of land to the US.

At the point of a gun.


Fourth although there is much to me ashamed of in the treatment of Native American tribes in our history they still have direct ownership of over 56,000,000 acres. How many Imperial Nations of the past have allowed that?

You might want to bush up on your history. You might also want to read the text of those treaties that transfered native american lands to amerika.



Phydeaux -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:04:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Now, you cant have this both ways.

Was Clinton impeached?


Of course he was impeached. Just as obviously, the motion failed. Nice try tho.



Phydeaux -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:07:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: kdsub

First we were not the United States then... another imperial nation. Second The vast majority of the US was not conquered but purchased from other imperial countries.

Not true. With the exception of alaska and the virgin islands every inch of amerika was taken at the point of a gun or the threat there of.


Third many native American nations sold vast areas of land to the US.

At the point of a gun.


Fourth although there is much to me ashamed of in the treatment of Native American tribes in our history they still have direct ownership of over 56,000,000 acres. How many Imperial Nations of the past have allowed that?

You might want to bush up on your history. You might also want to read the text of those treaties that transfered native american lands to amerika.



And you might want to brush up on a bit of history:

Lousiana Purchase
Seward's Folly
Gadsden Purchase.
Treaty of New Amsterdam.
Adams-Onis Treaty.
Treaty of Gaudalupe-Hidalgo.

Those treaties alone cover more than 2/3 the land outside the original colonies.



thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:10:11 PM)

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

It's showing up in the workplace as well. From an article in the Chicago Tribune:

I have to take exception to a lot of this article.

•Young employees have overoptimistic expectations about how quickly they'll be able to climb the corporate ladder.

Typically they are better educated in the sense that they know how much the company is making, how much they are worth to the company and they want a comensurate piece of the pie

*One HR professional set up interviews for two millennial candidates with the CEO of a multibillion-dollar company. Not only did they both cancel at the last minute, they asked if the interview could be done over Skype instead of in person, because it was too inconvenient to travel from the East to West Coast.

Did the potential employer send them round trip plane tickets with accomodations while they were away from home?

•Millennials' sense of entitlement is frustrating. As one HR professional noted, the younger employees feel that they are owed more respect, opportunity and pay than their experience, ability or knowledge merit.

The employer wants as much as he/she can get from the employee at the lowest price and the employee wants as much as they can get for the services they are offering.

•Millennials lack face-to-face communication skills. Noting that this age demographic is most comfortable texting and can often seem socially inept, those surveyed say it borders on an avoidant society. Still other survey respondents say they are concerned with millennials' need for flexible working conditions, including where and when they get work done.


Electronic communication is a reality. Traffic jams are a reality. One has the potential to solve the other.

•Millennials' work ethic is troublesome. Besides wanting to work remotely from Starbucks, millennials are often unwilling to put in more than 40 hours a week. Their propensity for leaving the office early — according to one respondent, for a 3 p.m. yoga class — is particularly problematic.

If you can get your job done then where you are is hardly relevant.

I think the biggest thing I see from that generation is the reliance on technology. For the most part, it has replaced interaction with the world at large. Hell, most prefer texting over talking on the cell phone.

I have always been a fan of face to face communication. Tone and body lanuage add a lot to the interaction.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:18:59 PM)

quote:

Not true. With the exception of alaska and the virgin islands every inch of amerika was taken at the point of a gun or the threat there of.

You might want to brush up on the whole Louisiana Purchase thing.



thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:20:40 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: kdsub

First we were not the United States then... another imperial nation. Second The vast majority of the US was not conquered but purchased from other imperial countries.

Not true. With the exception of alaska and the virgin islands every inch of amerika was taken at the point of a gun or the threat there of.


Third many native American nations sold vast areas of land to the US.

At the point of a gun.


Fourth although there is much to me ashamed of in the treatment of Native American tribes in our history they still have direct ownership of over 56,000,000 acres. How many Imperial Nations of the past have allowed that?

You might want to bush up on your history. You might also want to read the text of those treaties that transfered native american lands to amerika.



And you might want to brush up on a bit of history:

Lousiana Purchase

Acquired at the point of a gun or the threat thereof dumbass

Seward's Folly
Alaska as noted above was purchased dumbass.

Gadsden Purchase.

Also acquired at the point of a gun or the threat there of dumbass


Treaty of New Amsterdam.

This happened in 1674 more than a hundred years before amerika was a country dumbass.

Adams-Onis Treaty.

Acquired at the point of a gun or the threat there of dumbass.

Those treaties alone cover more than 2/3 the land outside the original colonies.

I see you still like turds floating in your cheerios.




OsideGirl -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:24:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx



*One HR professional set up interviews for two millennial candidates with the CEO of a multibillion-dollar company. Not only did they both cancel at the last minute, they asked if the interview could be done over Skype instead of in person, because it was too inconvenient to travel from the East to West Coast.

Did the potential employer send them round trip plane tickets with accomodations while they were away from home?




The potential employer buys the airline ticket, pays for car rental or transportation, pays for the hotel and gives a per diem for meals.



thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:32:33 PM)


ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The potential employer buys the airline ticket, pays for car rental or transportation, pays for the hotel and gives a per diem for meals.

I agree that should prevail but the article does not so state.



tj444 -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:47:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl

I think the biggest thing I see from that generation is the reliance on technology. For the most part, it has replaced interaction with the world at large. Hell, most prefer texting over talking on the cell phone.


for several months i spent a lot of time at the Y and omg.. these parents.. their kids are screaming, throwing tantrums, running around like hooligans, bouncing basketballs in the hall, fighting, etc etc and the stupid parents are too busy texting to tell little Johnny/Janie not to scream, to discipline them, etc.. Everyone of the parents did this.. I finally got wise and bought a good pair of noise reducing earplugs from Home Depot.. and I recently ceased being a member of the Y.. I gotta say, I dont miss it one bit.. [:D]

ok, whats wrong with interviewing via skype? from an employer perspective it can be recorded and the employer can show the best employee prospects interviews to other boardmembers/decisionmakers and you can go over it again and see more closely body language, etc.. There was an article a while ago about a tech company ceo that interviewed a prospective employee every day for a month before he was finally hired... I dont see anything wrong with this at all, and in fact, its what i would prefer if I were to hire someone, I see it as a greater benefit to the employer tho.. but I am for using technology as much as possible...



bounty44 -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:50:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl
It's showing up in the workplace as well. From an article in the Chicago Tribune:

quote:


•Young employees have overoptimistic expectations about how quickly they'll be able to climb the corporate ladder.

*One HR professional set up interviews for two millennial candidates with the CEO of a multibillion-dollar company. Not only did they both cancel at the last minute, they asked if the interview could be done over Skype instead of in person, because it was too inconvenient to travel from the East to West Coast.

•Millennials' sense of entitlement is frustrating. As one HR professional noted, the younger employees feel that they are owed more respect, opportunity and pay than their experience, ability or knowledge merit.

•Millennials lack face-to-face communication skills. Noting that this age demographic is most comfortable texting and can often seem socially inept, those surveyed say it borders on an avoidant society. Still other survey respondents say they are concerned with millennials' need for flexible working conditions, including where and when they get work done.

•Millennials' work ethic is troublesome. Besides wanting to work remotely from Starbucks, millennials are often unwilling to put in more than 40 hours a week. Their propensity for leaving the office early — according to one respondent, for a 3 p.m. yoga class — is particularly problematic.


I think the biggest thing I see from that generation is the reliance on technology. For the most part, it has replaced interaction with the world at large. Hell, most prefer texting over talking on the cell phone.


I have complained in other threads about the general quality of so (too) many students in higher education. now, take those "millennial" job seekers, and back them up a year or four, and imagine those same attitudes in college.



thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 3:54:59 PM)


ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Not true. With the exception of alaska and the virgin islands every inch of amerika was taken at the point of a gun or the threat there of.


You might want to brush up on the whole Louisiana Purchase thing.

You might want to do the same sweetie.
You might want to start with the napolianic wars. The treaty of san ildefanso both 1796 and 1800. Should get you started then perhaps something from jefferson. You might also want to consult the steven ambrose text "undaunted courage".
There is also the "conflicted loyality" of the amerikan general of the army at the time, james wilkinson,who was a spanish spy.




Phydeaux -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 4:08:38 PM)

Stretch the definition wide enough and you can say everything is by threat of a gun.

Where is my b-52 demodulator?

Fact is, the US threatened no one to purchase the louisiana purchase. The fact that napoleon wanted money to wage war does not constitute a threat of a gun telling him to sell. No further discussion by you will be paid attention to you.



Nnanji -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 4:13:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: kdsub

First we were not the United States then... another imperial nation. Second The vast majority of the US was not conquered but purchased from other imperial countries.

Not true. With the exception of alaska and the virgin islands every inch of amerika was taken at the point of a gun or the threat there of.


Third many native American nations sold vast areas of land to the US.

At the point of a gun.


Fourth although there is much to me ashamed of in the treatment of Native American tribes in our history they still have direct ownership of over 56,000,000 acres. How many Imperial Nations of the past have allowed that?

You might want to bush up on your history. You might also want to read the text of those treaties that transfered native american lands to amerika.



And you might want to brush up on a bit of history:

Lousiana Purchase

Acquired at the point of a gun or the threat thereof dumbass

Seward's Folly
Alaska as noted above was purchased dumbass.

Gadsden Purchase.

Also acquired at the point of a gun or the threat there of dumbass


Treaty of New Amsterdam.

This happened in 1674 more than a hundred years before amerika was a country dumbass.

Adams-Onis Treaty.

Acquired at the point of a gun or the threat there of dumbass.

Those treaties alone cover more than 2/3 the land outside the original colonies.

I see you still like turds floating in your cheerios.




It's funny how quickly you google to try and look smart but can't spend two minutes googling ADA laws to be smart.



thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 4:16:48 PM)


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

No further discussion by you will be paid attention to you.


That would be a wise choice, since you seem to have grown tired of having you ass spanked purple everytime you think you know more than I.



thompsonx -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 4:18:12 PM)


ORIGINAL: Nnanji


It's funny how quickly you google to try and look smart but can't spend two minutes googling ADA laws to be smart.

Not my claim to validate.



Zonie63 -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 4:21:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

I disagree. The entire history of the US has been built on seeking new territories by force. Back in 1607, what would eventually become the US was nothing more than a tiny village on the east coast of Virginia. We got much, much bigger. How do you suppose that happened?


First we were not the United States then... another imperial nation.


Well, yes, technically that was true. But the colonists living there obviously wanted more land. Clearly, it started slowly, but as more colonists poured in and started moving west, there were numerous clashes.

Part of the reason why we had a revolution in the first place was not just due to taxation without representation, but another sorepoint was the proclamation of 1763, which forbade colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Mountains, in the newly acquired territories which used to be called New France. That area was promised to the Indians who supported the British in the French and Indian War. Once the Revolution was over, the first thing done was start moving west into the territories previously forbidden. This led to a war with the Natives living in the region. That's when Washington sent in Mad Anthony Wayne.

quote:


Second The vast majority of the US was not conquered but purchased from other imperial countries.


Yeah, in the same way that Don Corleone "bought" Johnny Fontaine's contract from that bandleader. We made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

The Louisiana territory was temporarily given to Spain, but Napoleon got it back for France. We were ready to move in and take it by force, but we made an offer to purchase it - or else. Napoleon needed the cash more than he needed Louisiana (or war with the U.S.), so he took the deal. It was more or less the same deal with our acquisition of the Florida territory from Spain in 1819. (A few years earlier, we wanted to take Canada by force from the British, but somehow they didn't want to give it up that easily. The war ended in a tie with neither country gaining anything.)

Florida was seen as a staging area for Indian attacks and a haven for runaway slaves, so the U.S. told Spain that we will purchase it - or else we would take it by force (which we had to do anyway, since the Natives didn't seem to want us there). Some historians believe that our post-treaty victory over the British in New Orleans in 1815 ("we took a little bacon and we took a little beans and we fought the bloody British at the town of New Orleans") got the attention of the Spanish who didn't want to suffer the same fate.

Even as we moved into Louisiana, there were native tribes who opposed our expansionism into their territory, leading to further wars down the line for the next several decades. They weren't exactly peaceful acquisitions, and some may question whether those imperial powers had any right to sell land that wasn't really theirs where most of it wasn't even under their control. It's like buying stolen merchandise.

Texas was a bit complicated, since that had been under Spain, then under Mexico when they gained their independence from Spain. The territory was still sparsely populated and mostly disorganized, so a bunch of white American "illegal aliens" started moving in and settling in what was officially Mexican territory. They also brought their slaves with them which also complicated the settlers' position with Mexico. Without going into excessive detail, it eventually led to the Texas War of Independence, which Mexico never really went along with, and the border was never really settled upon either. When the U.S. had its Anschluss with Texas, there was an incident between US forces and Mexican forces in the disputed area, which led to what we now call the Mexican War in 1845.

During that war (in 1846), we acquired Oregon Country after a settlement with the British during which the famous slogan "54°40' or Fight!" was coined. So, we were definitely spoiling for a fight (which would have been interesting since we were at war with Mexico at the time). As it turned, though, we didn't get 54°40' and we didn't fight, and this led to the final settling of the current US border with Canada. A couple years later, we defeated Mexico and acquired the territory known as the Mexican Cession. 5 years later, the Gadsden Purchase (pushed forth by then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis with the plans of eventually putting a railroad through the region) took place, which included parts of Arizona and New Mexico and settled what is now the border between the US and Mexico.

In all of these instances, there was either force or the threat of force, not to mention that we still had to use force against the Native tribes living in these territories which would not become fully organized until after the Civil War. One of the more famous battles was the Battle of the Little Bighorn, also known as Custer's last stand - on territory which we supposedly purchased from France more than 70 years earlier. If you want to define it as "not conquering territory" because we purchased it from another imperial power, then okay, but it still seems kind of shaky. In any case, Custer lost the battle and we had to send even more troops in to secure "our" territory.

In the case of purchasing Alaska from Russia, Russia was having problems with their colonies in that region and were willing to let it go. Secretary of State Seward actually got a lot of criticism from US politicians and press, who called it "Seward's Icebox." So, that may be the one instance where force wasn't involved or threatened in a US territorial acquisition.

In the case of Hawaii, they were an independent kingdom prior to our annexation of that territory. But if we hadn't grabbed it, it's probable some other imperial power would have done so. The Hawaiians didn't put up much resistance. The native girls met the US forces at the beach, and everyone got "leid."

Then, as I mentioned previously, the acquisition of Guam, Puerto Rico (which we still have today) and the Philippines and Cuba were the result of the Spanish-American War. So, that was another instance of the use of force to gain territory, and in the case of the Philippines, they thought they were going to gain independence since Spain was kicked out of there. Little did they know...

Then there was the whole matter of how we gained the Panama Isthmus with the intention of building a canal.

The purchase of the US Virgin Islands took place in 1917, from Denmark. That was relatively peaceful, as I recall.

So, the idea that we simply "bought" land peacefully does not really tell the whole story.

quote:


Third many native American nations sold vast areas of land to the US. Fourth although there is much to me ashamed of in the treatment of Native American tribes in our history they still have direct ownership of over 56,000,000 acres.


So, we had to buy land again after we already bought it from someone else? I think it was Patton who said "I don't like having to pay for the same real estate twice." Again, it's far too detailed to go into (and this is getting too long already), but the entire 19th century had a lot of treaties being signed with the Indians which were broken. There was land they were supposed to get but lost again when the mining companies and railroad companies started moving in, not to mention the ranchers.

Some of what happened was absolutely outrageous. For example, even after the Apaches went to their reservation, the white settlers were afraid of their religion. The Apaches were doing ghost dances to bring back their dead warriors and reclaim their land, and apparently the US Army was afraid that there was going to be some Apache version of a zombie apocalypse coming to pass. Since they didn't want to have to fight undead Apache, they figured the best thing to do was put an end to those dreaded ghost dances. It was the same story up at Wounded Knee. So much for our country's devotion to religious freedom.

quote:


How many Imperial Nations of the past have allowed that?

Butch


I think the British did, although I'm a bit fuzzy on that. South Africa also ostensibly granted "independence" to various territories in their region, such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana, although these were just elements of Apartheid, they had no real independence, and no one in the world recognized them as independent states.

Nor are any of the Indian reservations truly independent states. Some might want to be, but that's never going to happen.

And again, I'm not even saying that Americans of today need to be ashamed or feel guilty about what happened before we were born. What's done is done, and we can't go back and change it. But at least we can tell the truth about it, the WHOLE truth, not just the half-truths we tell ourselves in an attempt to whitewash our own history.



mnottertail -> RE: Generation Gap (4/15/2016 4:25:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Now, you cant have this both ways.

Was Clinton impeached?


Of course he was impeached. Just as obviously, the motion failed. Nice try tho.


A bill of impeachment was presented to the senate. He was acquitted. It may colloquially be called impeachment but if one rattles right down the strict interpretation of the constitution, he was not impeached.

Let me quote the august authority in these matters:
(even though you quickly edited the post, no doubt you are guilty and trying to hide something, shows gross negligence......don't you think?

Thompson opined that congress made laws you went on to say they produced bills. The supreme court justice presides over the trial because the checks and balances need to take place, and the president cannot preside over his own impeachment (though Tricky Dicky tried) ......

So in strict interpretation of the constitution he was not impeached, rather; a bill of impeachment was presented, he was acquitted, innocent. That is law of the land, is it not?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625