The American Constitution

[Rokenn]

@donut, lol that is a classic!

Edit: but it seems it is merely another urban legend:
Snopes strikes again

oh well it is still funny [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-28-2003, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by ElricMorlockin: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Timber, you're taking this way too seriously. I find it an interesting comment on human nature that dead men are trusted more than alive ones that's all. Take it for what it is.

You say this despite being a self espoused Christian? Very interesting insite into your thought process Yorick. Does this mean, that you dont follow the words of Jesus in your life more (as in trusting it) than you do a local minister, preacher etc? Take it for what it is? Does that mean you are not *really* a follower of the Gospels? [/QUOTE]Jesus rose 3 days after he was executed. 500 odd people saw him. He is very much alive in my world to this day. I speak to him, he helps me. If he wasn't alive, impacting my life I wouldn't be following him, feeling forgiven or empowered by him, or loving him.

So yes that is an insight into my thought process.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by ElricMorlockin: We are not, nor ever have been an empire.

Well history will be the judge of that.

em·pire 1 a(1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2): the territory of such a political unit b: something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control 2: imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

Continental America is larger than Rome was. Pax Americana covers the globe. No other Empire has been more militarily dominant during it's hegemony, though the British Empire was larger.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: So you are saying that the majority of the people you know want to leave the country? Perhaps that is more endemic of your social circle?

Yeah, I live in New York City Magik. Ever heard of a thing called 9/11?? We're still on Orange alert. Kinda makes my "social circle" jumpy.

Additionally New York has a 60% immigrancy rate. 60% were not born in New York. That number includes a huge number of "satisfied Americans" Magik. Satisfied with wherever they were born, enough to want to leave it for the big apple.

As I said, people leave where they're from for a myriad of reasons. Some of it is simple curiosity. "How the other half live" is a saying about that Magik.

Australia has curbed it's immigration by choice, not because people stopped wanting to go there. We are not able to support a huge population given the way things are with our land at the moment. And yes, I encounter countless Americans who wish to emmigrate to Australia. The more times they've been there the higher the desire to go to a land with gun banning, public smoking restrictions, lowerblood alcohol for drivers, and impossibly less crime.

This is not an argument about which nation is better. That's futile and beside the point. I'm pointing out that things are NOT as black and white as you are claiming they are.

[ 05-28-2003, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[ElricMorlockin]

Originally posted by Yorick:Well history will be the judge of that.

Indeed and it will all boil down to whether or not an "ISM" idealogy wins in the end or it doesnt win in the end.

em·pire 1 a(1): a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2): the territory of such a political unit b: something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control 2: imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion

Continental America is larger than Rome was. Pax Americana covers the globe. No other Empire has been more militarily dominant during it's hegemony, though the British Empire was larger. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Size has nothing to do with an empire. An empire by the definition you chose to cut and paste is led by......... an emperor as chief of state perhaps? So please, name a U.S. Emperor for me Yorick.
Pax Americana? Yes the peace of America..... just like the Pax Romanus I assume you're trying to assert? Hardly. So tell me, name one European country that is part of our empire? We after all sent hundreds of thousands of troops there in WWII, ya know, in order to expand our empire. Or how about Southeast Asia or Africa where we also sent hundreds of thousands of troops. Is there a province of Japan in our Pax Americana? How about a province of Germany or Holland? No? How about a province of France, Belgium, Italy or Luxembourg? No?
Do tell Yorick, name our imperial conquests for us here. And speaking of that, if you are so thoroughly convinced that we are an empire, why did you want to join? Did you think that as a US citizen you would get your share of the loot, women and estates grabbed in one of our campaigns? Well, I hate to bust your bubble but I have been a citizen for 35 years, whereas you are still in the "probation" stage. Being that I have 35 plus years of seniority I get divs over you on this one. Unfortunately, New Rome (aka. Washington D.C.) hasnt pulled my number yet to get any of these things. I wonder why that is?
Last dominant military you noted. Indeed we have. It comes from years of having to prepare ourselves for attack, and the defense of people all over the damned globe. Now I know, that some of our far left wing friends here, dont like the facts that a.) The Soviet Union is gone b.) The Soviet Union was exporting its religion via the bayonet and subterfuge, but facts are facts. TThe realization has come to most of us, that without a top notch military, we are doomed to be again left wide open to sneak attack, where we are woefully unprepared to do anything about it. (WWII). Thus we have pumped an endless amount of cash into R&D, training, conditioning, support et al. Top this off Yorick, with the fact that the EU countries do not have a standing military of any appreciable existance, all the while their defense has rested squarely on our shoulders. I suppose you would have had it some other way?

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by ElricMorlockin: We are not, nor ever have been an empire.

Well history will be the judge of that.
[/QUOTE]I was actually attending a lecture called "Is the US an empire?". But, hmm, I don't feel like going into the details of it, but let's just say that the professor had lots of example and was convincing. [img]smile.gif[/img] But I guess it all depends how you look at it. For me, it is in a way. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

PS: But since this is a discussion about the Constitution I can add that he named as one of the reasons (somehow) that the American Constitution is in a way considered to be some kind of a holy book, since the original can never be completely erased or changed...

[ 05-29-2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by ElricMorlockin: Size has nothing to do with an empire. An empire by the definition you chose to cut and paste is led by......... an emperor as chief of state perhaps? So please, name a U.S. Emperor for me Yorick.

So an Emperor must rule an empire? I guess that rules out Rome, ruled by an Imperator, or Russia, ruled by a Czar, or the British Empire ruled by a King or Queen, or Egypt ruled by a Pharaoh. The name is not important Elric. The definition said "especially" not "exclusively". America has one person as it's supreme head of state that also has supreme authority. A virtual emperor. Oh yes I know there are checks and balances, but there were in Rome and later in Britain as well. It is comendable that such checks and balances exist. Don't get me wrong.

I hear you say "Aha, but our president is elected" Well, so was the Emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire" - in effect the German Empire of the middle ages. The succession of Rome was not clear cut hereditary either.
The definition I used was "a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority;"

What do you call California, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Lousiana purchase other than gradual aquisitions of a huge empire?

No conquests? What do the Mohicans, the Souix, the Apache and the Manhat peoples all have to say about conquest, territorial aquisition, supression and displacement? If the British Empire invaded and conquered Australia, the American Empire certainly conquered continental USA.

What is the situation in Iraq. A conquered province ruled by a governor. Oh yes, it's temporary, but so was Alexanders conquest and government of the area.

It's an empire Elric. It may be more euphemisingly comforting to call it another name, but a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

And speaking of that, if you are so thoroughly convinced that we are an empire, why did you want to join?

WHat does that have to do anything. I didn't place a moral value on the word "Empire" you seem to have done that. Would a citizen of a "protectorate" of Rome within it's spere of influence, want to visit the Capital city of the Empire? See where it's all happening? Australia falls under the "umbrella of protection" America provides. You could call it a protectorate. Prime Ministers there have followed American foreign policy to the letter. The American president has always affected my life, but I've never been able to vote for him.

Ever heard the saying "All the way with LBJ?"

Last dominant military you noted. Indeed we have. It comes from years of having to prepare ourselves for attack, and the defense of people all over the damned globe. Now I know, that some of our far left wing friends here, dont like the facts that a.) The Soviet Union is gone b.) The Soviet Union was exporting its religion via the bayonet and subterfuge, but facts are facts. TThe realization has come to most of us, that without a top notch military, we are doomed to be again left wide open to sneak attack

Years of having to prepare for attack... what an interesting concept. I wonder if you should talk to Russians or even Germans. See Russia has no natural boundaries. It was subjected to millenia of invasions and incursions from nomadic peoples from the east. The direct result of that need for defensiveness was the establishment of a policy of expansionism - taking the battle to the aggressors - that started with the Cossacks reversing the trend and moving east, and ended with Russia creating a wall, a defensive wall of states around them. Mongolia, Afgahnistan (attempted) plus the Eastern Bloc etc protecting them from another Napoleon-like venture from western Europe.

It has been said by prominent Russians, that "Russia has no friends but her army and her Navy."

America is an Empire Elric, the challenge will be how to deal with the challenges and yet maintain the idealism of it's founding. I would think calling a spade a spade is a good way to start. Self awareness.

[ 05-29-2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Yorick, you're getting into the deep end of the pool a bit. Using your definition of "Empire," everything imperial has been omitted. Of course, using your definition, a poor one, Texas is an "empire," as is Canada. The UK obviously is. Oh, I know it is becomimg more akin to states in a union, but just ask the old folks of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland how they came to be part of the "United Kingdom."

I find it really funny you cited a King and a Queen as non-examples of an Emperor. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Monarchy form of government is the exact nit that was being picked.

Fact is, the US is not "imperial" nor "colonial" in any traditional way. It is a very powerful nation that tries, and sometimes succeeds, to move the whole world to its whims. That, however, does not an empire make. The US has an incredible, nearly impecable, history of giving back or otherwise releasing territories that come under its control. Phillipines, Cuba, Japan are examples. In my mind, imperial powers do not do this.

Now, if the supremacy and pervasiveness of American culture the world over is a bone you want to gnaw, it is a fine concern. But, the spread of these things are through private channels, not government action. Disney, Pepsi, MTV, Hollywood, and Microsoft have done more to indoctrinate the world into the American hegemony than the State Department, President, or military ever would or could.

But, that too does not an empire make. "Empire" contains the notion that one nation's government or rule is extended over other sovereigns. That is NOT the case with the USA -- moreso NOT that case than with any other powerful nation in history, I would argue. NOT colonizing or establishing an empire is one of the very basic tenets of this country.

Other than bullying and cajoling, which the USA does very well, it is not an Empire and does not rule abroad.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by pritchke: quote: Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: On the gun issue. Banning guns is just silly. What would be the point? Stop deaths? Pah, murders are murders, if they dont have a gun they will use a knife. Anything can be used as a lethal weapon. Like it or not, a vast majority of americans enjoy guns. They enjoy hunting with them, they enjoy just shoting them. If you take guns away from people then are taking a little bit of freedom from them.

However with a knife it is possible to disarm the person with a sheet or pillow. Much more difficult to disarm someone with a gun. Plus you have a chance to escape outrun a person with a knife, with a gun outrunning and dodging become very tricky. [/QUOTE]Yeah, I've always loved this logic as well. Iron Ranger, maybe if you take a knife and I take a gun we can fight and it'll be all fair and even? Well then... lets get it on shall we?

No, because that argument is patently ridiculous. You can kill someone with a pencil I expect, if you try hard enough, but it doesn't mean that its anywhere near as dangerous as a gun is.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, you're getting into the deep end of the pool a bit. Using your definition of "Empire," everything imperial has been omitted. Of course, using your definition, a poor one, Texas is an "empire," as is Canada. The UK obviously is. Oh, I know it is becomimg more akin to states in a union, but just ask the old folks of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland how they came to be part of the "United Kingdom." I find it really funny you cited a King and a Queen as non-examples of an Emperor. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Monarchy form of government is the exact nit that was being picked. Fact is, the US is not "imperial" nor "colonial" in any traditional way. It is a very powerful nation that tries, and sometimes succeeds, to move the whole world to its whims. That, however, does not an empire make. The US has an incredible, nearly impecable, history of giving back or otherwise releasing territories that come under its control. Phillipines, Cuba, Japan are examples. In my mind, imperial powers do not do this. Now, if the supremacy and pervasiveness of American culture the world over is a bone you want to gnaw, it is a fine concern. But, the spread of these things are through private channels, not government action. Disney, Pepsi, MTV, Hollywood, and Microsoft have done more to indoctrinate the world into the American hegemony than the State Department, President, or military ever would or could. But, that too does not an empire make. "Empire" contains the notion that one nation's government or rule is extended over other sovereigns. That is NOT the case with the USA -- moreso NOT that case than with any other powerful nation in history, I would argue. NOT colonizing or establishing an empire is one of the very basic tenets of this country. Other than bullying and cajoling, which the USA does very well, it is not an Empire and does not rule abroad.

You made the same mistake as Elric, presuming that I was looking beyond America's national borders for proof of "Imperialism". I am looking at Continental America, Alaska, Hawaii and Peurto Rico as evidence of Empire. One need go no further into the sphere of influence issue. The collection of states are akin to Imperial territories or Roman diocese. The gathering of people from various nations and backgrounds is also very imperial in nature. The way the nation was conquered and taken from the existing owners is also very Imperial in nature.

Why get defensive about this? Why not take the opportunity to have a closer look at your country? If you ignore the reality of the situation, you lose the ability to learn from history, learn from the mistakes of Rome, the Athenian Empire and Russia et al. Some of the Athenian situation is being reenacted in the American situation now. Including the demise of it's pseudo socialist adversary Sparta/Russia.

In Australia we used the inoffensive term "colonisation" to describe what was in actual fact an invasion. Our history books have beem revised to show the truth of the matter, and deal with the consequences accordingly.

That's what I'm getting at. Truthful self perception.

It's glaringly obvious when outside America. New York is often called "the Rome of the West."