It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Trump reveals when he thinks America was great

page: 15
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 11:23 PM

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: TaleDawn

Sure, the late 40's and 50's were "great"...

If you were a white male.

Oh, here we go...SJW regulators RIDE!!!

SJW, another catch acronym that is really a good thing, but made to look bad. Like conservatives are calling liberal Democrats 'Leftists' now, which is completely inaccurate.

Call Mystik a SSS, I dare you.

Master builders are great at building and I suppose master baiters are great at baiting. Who would have thunk it?

Trump is right, it was great in the 40's, 50's and even the 60's. Mystic is also correct, it was a unique set of circumstances that made the US great in the 40's, 50's and 60's. Two individuals can be right on the same point for similar or even different reasons.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 11:26 PM
a reply to: Snarl

I seem to remember you starting the argument with a lying photograph from a lying newspaper.

If you want evidence that the some members of the Royal Family were pro-German you could do a lot better than that. After all, they are of German descent.

However, only Americans believe that the Royal Family has any serious influence on British policy. Then again, the American concept of royalty appears to be Donald Trump. So I guess we can't expect you to understand.

edit on 28/3/16 by Astyanax because: because Jackie Onassis is so yesterday

posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 11:27 PM

originally posted by: andrewh7

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: MystikMushroom

It might sound "racist", but statistics show that the African America community had more business owners per capita, better education rates, less felons, less poverty and higher paternal fidelity rates in the 40's and 50's then it does today.

So... who was better off?

Are you referring to better education through segregated schools? White only restaurants, drinking fountains and bathrooms? Poll taxes and grandfather clauses to restrict black voting rights? No interracial dating or marriages? KKK lynchings? I'd love to see these wonderful statistics of which you speak.

Makes perfect sense to me. Black people werent allowed to do anything that was for whites. So they had to go and start their own businesses to supply the black community. Why would whites back then want to start black bars, or restaurants, or stores? I have a hard time believing they would.
Therefore, there were more black owned businesses back then, because there had to be. How many black people own businesses in America today? A small fraction of those in the past. Because they dont have to anymore. They can just go to MonopolyMart like anyone else.

Of course there were more black owned businesses back in the day, how could there not be? How does this one point not compute to some of y'all?

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 02:38 AM

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

We can't go back to that "golden age" when you could support a wife and two kids stamping metal in a factory for 40 hours a week.

Sure we can. Why do you think we can't?

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:38 AM
a reply to: Snarl

lent (verb)(past tense) contribute or add (something, especially a quality) to. "the smile lent his face a boyish charm" synonyms: add, impart, give, bestow, confer, provide, supply, furnish, contribute "these examples lend weight to his assertions

Under the terms of LEND-Lease which was actually what occurred in WW II:-

Allow (a person or organization) the use of (a sum of money) under an agreement to pay it back later, typically with interest:

Got a receipt?

Maybe we did get a receipt.

The payments of $83.25m (£42.5m) to the US and US$22.7m (£11.6m) to Canada are the last of 50 instalments since 1950. The amount paid back is nearly double that loaned in 1945 and 1946. "This week we finally honour in full our commitments to the US and Canada for the support they gave us 60 years ago," said Treasury Minister Ed Balls

Please note. It was not ONLY THE U.S. who supplied goods under Lend-Lease . In fact The U.K. sent the Soviet Union Tanks, aircraft etc under Lend-Lease deals during WW II

So why do you think Mother England didn't invade on her own and just mop things right up?

Maybe The U.K. should have just sat back and left it to everyone else who wanted to fight The Nazi's to sort it out.

After Hitlers failed planned invasion of The U.K. we should have just left alone. Being The U.K. we didn't.

Really? I think we made sure your asses were safe from the Russians, before we got real cozy with the Japanese. Wasn't America great back then? Always putting her allies before her own interest

When where we at war with Soviet Union then? History tells me The Soviet Union where our allies during WW II.
And do you think it was only The U.S. who fought against Japan ? There where 1 Million British Empire Troops fighting the Japanese in Burma alone.

Remember Iwo Jima ? The Royal Navy and Airforce had to soften up The Japanese before The U.S. landed.

If you would like some REAL facts about the war against Japan then i suggest you look up " The Battle Of Kohima" India.

The Battle of Kohima, which raged for weeks around the remote Indian hill station of Kohima, was where the tide finally turned in the war against the Japanese.Until Kohima, it has been said, the Japanese never suffered a defeat. After Kohima, they never had a victory

Facts like these are never taught in U.S. schools because they didn't involve The U.S. Typical really.

Yep. Two thousand Yanks paid the ultimate price opening up the invasion. And what are you doing? Belittling their sacrifice. Makes you feel damn proud now, doesn't it

And you are doing exactly the same in belittling the ultimate sacrifice The British and others paid when fighting against Japan, in implying it was only The U.S that fought against the Japanese.

Your comments have made you both very foolish and ill-advised.

edit on 29-3-2016 by alldaylong because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 06:47 AM
a reply to: Snarl

No I'm not doing a disservice

The USA played a impirtant part and its solders fought bravely.

But you were not a army of captain Americas that won the war singlehandedly.

And the USA had its faults in the war.

It's not a disservice to say Omaha was a Cock up. If say it's a disservice to the two thousand brave men that died if you just ignored the mistakes of what when wrong and gloss over any critism of that fiasco with the patriot canned response.
Someone high up screwed that landing up. The common American soldier didn't , they just died because some idiot at a command desk in The UK didn't organise things right.
edit on 29-3-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 02:16 PM
I saw some post about race. First off, over 2.5 African Americans registered for the draft in WW2 including women. These were Patriot Americans who fought for their country and persevered despite prejudice and discrimination. The African Americans living in the North were far better off than those living in the South. In 1954 it became illegal to segregate schools (Brown v. Bd. of Ed.) and that led to the abolishment of all legally enforced segregation in 1964 (Civil Right Act of 1964). Someone else mentioned African American businesses and it was true, because of previous segregation they had to create their own independent run businesses, including banks. But those businesses dwindled with desegregation. Notwithstanding the pre-existing ignorant racial prejudices, one can argue that this era spawned Civil Rights movement for African Americans. I'm not saying life was peachy for them, but if you look at America in context, it's far from perfect, but it goes to show that it can change.

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 02:25 PM
You really can't diminish what America did to ensure victory in WW2 without sounding anti-American or just have poor knowledge of historical context. It's OK, America helped Europe defeat the Nazi threat to their existence. Without our help Europe would have lost the and their history would have been much different. Sure the USSR was an Ally, but that was more like enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hitler was a poor military mind who was overambitious and stretch his army too thin fighting on multiple fronts they couldn't handle. Mistake happen throughout war, war is unpredictable and adjustments are made.

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: mkultra11

You contradict yourself with the following comments.

America helped Europe defeat the Nazi threat to their existence. Without our help Europe would have lost the and their history would have been much different.

Hitler was a poor military mind who was overambitious and stretch his army too thin fighting on multiple fronts they couldn't handle

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:24 PM
a reply to: alldaylong

No I don't. I didn't say Hitler would have lost anyway, if that's what you are implying.

posted on Mar, 29 2016 @ 04:45 PM
a reply to: mkultra11

No I don't.

I beg to dither.

posted on Mar, 30 2016 @ 04:03 AM
a reply to: mkultra11


UK likley wasn't in any serouis risk of being invaded.

How was Germany meant to get its panzers over the Channel when the Royal Navy dwarfed the German navy?

There only hope which was a slim one ( note massive honking great navy) was to gain air superiority, a hope that got dashed in 1940.

Long term Germany were probably screwed.
The Royal Navy blockade would of made Germany run out of resources and collapse like WW1. Hell why do you think hitler invaded Russia and Africa? Wasn't for vodka and Safari !

And that's not British rar rar nonsense.
It's just recognising the fact NAZIS can't walk across water.
edit on 30-3-2016 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 12  13  14   >>

log in