Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2016 17:08:22 GMT -5
Go ahead - govern yourselves. Just don't whine when you are going down the tubes.
|
|
Jessiealan
xr
Member of the Month, October 2013
Posts: 8,726
|
Post by Jessiealan on Jul 28, 2016 17:55:18 GMT -5
I don't do bees. The U.S. Only got involved in the European theatre to save Britain (and FDR had to pull a fast one on the American people to do that.) See, the great thing about America is that we have no problem with re- invention. That's a big key to our might. Britain seems to dwell in it's past, and it's a mistake. You are no longer the #5 power in the world. Do you want to guess who is? It's California. Great news, something else for you to brag about, meanwhile we are on the way to governing ourselves again...5th power, 10th power...you can have it, if power is your god. I believe there is enough bragging to go around. Both the U. S. and the U. K. are practiced at that. Both deserve a certain amount, but also need to respect each other's worth.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 3:45:45 GMT -5
Go ahead - govern yourselves. Just don't whine when you are going down the tubes. we will take full responsibility as has already been mentioned several times already....
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 3:47:54 GMT -5
A citizen of what? But you haven't read enough to understand the fundamental differences between the US and the EU. The democratic deficit of the EU is truly staggering. We can stand on our own. You've been listening to the likes of Obama a little too much. Britain has never been able to stand on its own - which is why ( combined with greed) she has plundered nations worldwide for centuries. your absolute ignorance on the subject is astounding...matched only by your bad manners
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 3:51:11 GMT -5
A. You had lots of handouts. Besides plundering an untold number of other nations, you also benefitted from American assistance, especially in WWII and afterwards, with the Marshall Plan. Show a little gratitude! Yes, I have dual-citizenship. I only vote in the U.S., as this is where I live. we had a loan NOT A HAND OUT during ww2 and we finally repaid that loan IN FULL about two or three yrs ago what gratitude we owe no gratitude to anyone ...
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 3:52:37 GMT -5
Have you been to Harvard, Columbia, MIT? The world's finest. Perhaps it is, do they do courses on modesty. and another on good manners
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jul 29, 2016 3:53:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 4:02:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 4:06:57 GMT -5
Great news, something else for you to brag about, meanwhile we are on the way to governing ourselves again...5th power, 10th power...you can have it, if power is your god. I believe there is enough bragging to go around. Both the U. S. and the U. K. are practiced at that. Both deserve a certain amount, but also need to respect each other's worth. we don't tar you all with the same brush Jessie...but the amount of is getting very tedious and rather boring especially when delivered with such unwarranted bile
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 4:55:38 GMT -5
I don't do bees. cThe U.S. Only got involved in the European theatre to save Britain (and FDR had to pull a fast one on the American people to do that.) See, the great thing about America is that we have no problem with re- invention. That's a big key to our might. Britain seems to dwell in it's past, and it's a mistake. You are no longer the #5 power in the world. Do you want to guess who is? It's California. """"The U.S. Only got involved in the European theatre to save Britain (and FDR had to pull a fast one on the American people to do that.)"" what a load of uneducated codology you do spout.... and what is your proof that the UK lives in the past....lots of assumptions based on your own rather twisted bias ..a big big chip on the shoulder..where did it come from as for this """"See, the great thing about America is that we have no problem with re- invention"" we see the reinvention all the times mostly from hollywood
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 29, 2016 5:10:51 GMT -5
I don't do bees. cThe U.S. Only got involved in the European theatre to save Britain (and FDR had to pull a fast one on the American people to do that.) See, the great thing about America is that we have no problem with re- invention. That's a big key to our might. Britain seems to dwell in it's past, and it's a mistake. You are no longer the #5 power in the world. Do you want to guess who is? It's California. """"The U.S. Only got involved in the European theatre to save Britain (and FDR had to pull a fast one on the American people to do that.)"" what a load of uneducated codology you do spout.... and what is your proof that the UK lives in the past....lots of assumptions based on your own rather twisted bias ..a big big chip on the shoulder..where did it come from as for this """"See, the great thing about America is that we have no problem with re- invention"" we see the reinvention all the times mostly from hollywood in reply to the assertion """The U.S. Only got involved in the European theatre to save Britain (and FDR had to pull a fast one on the American people to do that.)""" America had no option but to be involved as Hitler declared war on the United States the 11th of December 1941...so lets stick with some realitiy and a read up of operation Drumbeat wouldn't go amiss either contrary to popular beliefe America was vunerable..quite a few sinkings ocurred
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 29, 2016 9:50:05 GMT -5
what ever you wish.. one of the main problems with the past is its not straight forward..and is far more complex than commonly held myths and generalities[which we all fall into ]..and its used and abused without taking into account the realities and logistics of past times I am no lover or supporter of Empire..any Empire past or present to bring the idea of EMPIRE UP TO DATE....yesterday a comment was made about the poor being goaded into voting exit[quite untrue of course]in the referenda the EU is nothing but the concept of Empire brought up to date and modernised...areas brought under one governmental control ..ergo Empire Sympathy for India wanting to leave the erstwhile British Empire....but castigation for the British daring to wish to leave the European Empire...very double standards The E.U. is a confederation, not an Empire. And confederation is needed in this world. The U.S. is a confederation. You should learn to pry open your mind and see the world as it exists. Just a point to ensure clarity. While the various States within North America came together (primarily due the necessity of fighting a war) under the Articles of Confederation and were therefore a rightly defined as a Confederation, this only lasted until 1787 when the Constitution of the United States replaced the Articles of Confederation. The noun confederation comes from the early 15th Century, meaning “an agreement.” Confederation is similar to the word "federation," but with important differences. Whereas a federation has a strong central government, a confederation is more of an agreement between separate bodies to cooperate with each other. The European alliance could be called a confederation, while the United States is a federation. During the debates as to whether to ratify the newly written Constitution of the United States the idea of a Confederation verses a union of a Federalize Representative Republic was one of the major issues. In the end the Confederation concept was rejected and the Constitution of the United States was ratified (1787, more correctly 1791 with the ratification of the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights). To some this may seem to be more of a splitting of a hair over word definitions, however, it is a watershed point in the definition of government. The reason being that it defined the involvement of (or lack thereof) the people in the functioning of government. That is, the people were removed from the decision making and elected representatives became the actual decision makers. In part, this path was followed to ensure that a true Democracy (rule by majority) would not occur. This entire issue is addressed throughout what has come to be termed the “Federalist Papers” and the opposition in the “Anti-Federalist Papers.” Such luminaries as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton; and James Madison; spoke for the Federalized position of the Constitution of the United States. The idea of a Confederation within North America did return with the founding of the “Confederate States of America” in 1860 but that ended in 1865 with the end of the Civil War.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 10:00:56 GMT -5
The E.U. is a confederation, not an Empire. And confederation is needed in this world. The U.S. is a confederation. You should learn to pry open your mind and see the world as it exists. Just a point to ensure clarity. While the various States within North America came together (primarily due the necessity of fighting a war) under the Articles of Confederation and were therefore a rightly defined as a Confederation, this only lasted until 1787 when the Constitution of the United States replaced the Articles of Confederation. The noun confederation comes from the early 15th Century, meaning “an agreement.” Confederation is similar to the word "federation," but with important differences. Whereas a federation has a strong central government, a confederation is more of an agreement between separate bodies to cooperate with each other. The European alliance could be called a confederation, while the United States is a federation. During the debates as to whether to ratify the newly written Constitution of the United States the idea of a Confederation verses a union of a Federalize Representative Republic was one of the major issues. In the end the Confederation concept was rejected and the Constitution of the United States was ratified (1787, more correctly 1791 with the ratification of the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights). To some this may seem to be more of a splitting of a hair over word definitions, however, it is a watershed point in the definition of government. The reason being that it defined the involvement of (or lack thereof) the people in the functioning of government. That is, the people were removed from the decision making and elected representatives became the actual decision makers. In part, this path was followed to ensure that a true Democracy (rule by majority) would not occur. This entire issue is addressed throughout what has come to be termed the “Federalist Papers” and the opposition in the “Anti-Federalist Papers.” Such luminaries as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton; and James Madison; spoke for the Federalized position of the Constitution of the United States. The idea of a Confederation within North America did return with the founding of the “Confederate States of America” in 1860 but that ended in 1865 with the end of the Civil War. What you write is true, but it is still and issue we wrangle with. The strength of the federal government is constantly being debated, and state's rights is still a matter of debate and contest. We are both a confederation and a federation. I don't see it changing in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 29, 2016 10:04:57 GMT -5
A. You had lots of handouts. Besides plundering an untold number of other nations, you also benefitted from American assistance, especially in WWII and afterwards, with the Marshall Plan. Show a little gratitude! Yes, I have dual-citizenship. I only vote in the U.S., as this is where I live. we had a loan NOT A HAND OUT during ww2 and we finally repaid that loan IN FULL about two or three yrs ago what gratitude we owe no gratitude to anyone ... Quite right Mouse. May I also suggest, that while these moneys were technically a loan, from a self-serving perspective of the United States, they were as much an investment in Europe in the interests of the United States as anything. Without a strong rebuilding of Europe into major economic powers (include Japan in that assessment) the world would have taken a very dark path with little hope but continued war in the West. Such would not have been in the interests of the United States or anyone for that matter. Today we could make an analogy from that period to the current period of needs for energy. A case can be made that having Europe dependent on the Mideast for energy, is a major handicap on the economic growth for the West. The United States can supply all the energy it needs plus all the energy needs of Europe. In fact, wean the West from any energy needs from the Mideast. If in that effort the energy sources of Canada and Mexico are included, it is likely that North America and Europe will have all energy needs covered for 200 to 400 years based on current known sources. Add to this the coal reserves both in North America and Eastern Europe and there is no need to deal with the Mideast at all. This would be an investment in the best interests of the West as well as an investment in World Peace.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 29, 2016 10:31:01 GMT -5
Just a point to ensure clarity. While the various States within North America came together (primarily due the necessity of fighting a war) under the Articles of Confederation and were therefore a rightly defined as a Confederation, this only lasted until 1787 when the Constitution of the United States replaced the Articles of Confederation. The noun confederation comes from the early 15th Century, meaning “an agreement.” Confederation is similar to the word "federation," but with important differences. Whereas a federation has a strong central government, a confederation is more of an agreement between separate bodies to cooperate with each other. The European alliance could be called a confederation, while the United States is a federation. During the debates as to whether to ratify the newly written Constitution of the United States the idea of a Confederation verses a union of a Federalize Representative Republic was one of the major issues. In the end the Confederation concept was rejected and the Constitution of the United States was ratified (1787, more correctly 1791 with the ratification of the first ten Amendments known as the Bill of Rights). To some this may seem to be more of a splitting of a hair over word definitions, however, it is a watershed point in the definition of government. The reason being that it defined the involvement of (or lack thereof) the people in the functioning of government. That is, the people were removed from the decision making and elected representatives became the actual decision makers. In part, this path was followed to ensure that a true Democracy (rule by majority) would not occur. This entire issue is addressed throughout what has come to be termed the “Federalist Papers” and the opposition in the “Anti-Federalist Papers.” Such luminaries as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton; and James Madison; spoke for the Federalized position of the Constitution of the United States. The idea of a Confederation within North America did return with the founding of the “Confederate States of America” in 1860 but that ended in 1865 with the end of the Civil War. What you write is true, but it is still and issue we wrangle with. The strength of the federal government is constantly being debated, and state's rights is still a matter of debate and contest. We are both a confederation and a federation. I don't see it changing in the near future. Certainly your points are well taken. As one who has years of Libertarian experience, I have a natural inclination to States Rights. Through those years continued study of such as James Madison and the history of Confederacies have altered my point of view to being less intense. In this path I have become far more strongly a Constitutionalist. There, States Rights are defined within the Constitution’s Federalist approach and not in a Confederate approach. That this means less direct involvement of the citizen in government is true and that is somewhat unsettling to an hoary old anarchist and libertarian, but that same Federalist Constitutional approach recognizes the Common Law origin of Rights and Sovereignty being within the individual prior to the Constitution with the functional reality that the Constitution provides no rights to anyone and can operate only on defined functionality from within the Constitution. Of course these realities do not eliminate contention between citizens, but those contentions are part of (actually a desired element) of the James Madison approach. That is, rather that producing a homogeneous political stew, it is the abrasive contact between factions which are the role of the citizens. Abrasive contact that assures no single interest and perspective gaining control of government. Rather the political body continually developing new approaches. Of course this is dependent on political discourse working within the Constitutional structure. Since the early 1900s this has been challenged with the Woodrow Wilson theory of administrative government which is meant to work outside of Constitutional government with the singular goal of efficient government. Of course this is entirely outside of the intent of the Founders and the structure of the Constitution. Sorry for the rambling, but once started my background often takes over and one thing just leads to another.
|
|