General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2296488

    Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American


    by oldefar ·

    I have tried very hard to understand the perspectives of those of you who are not Americans. What is it that at times puts us at such odds, even when we agree on basic precepts? Thanks to the often frustrating, occasionally angering, and always interesting comments here at TechRepublic and with those I directly communicate with, I have at least come to understand those differences in my mind.

    What non-Americans seem to miss is this most American principal that each individual is sovereign onto himself. Government in America, at any level, has no authority except for that granted to it by each of us. I believe that by upbringing or by choice, consciously or unconsciously, this is a value most Americans embrace. I believe this is such a core value that we rarely consider it, but it uniquely impacts how we view the world around us.

    This has significant impact on our perceptions. For example, the right to bear arms (individuals have rights, government has powers). May I never need this right, but it is one of the fundamentals of sovereignty. Is this worth the added risk from other sovereign individuals who may choose to abuse their power? For me, yes. I can no more envision surrendering my personal sovereignty than others can envision their country turning all military power over to a higher authority. Perhaps doing so as an American would make me safer, and perhaps nations doing so would make the world safer, but the risk is too high.

    This issue of sovereignty applies to our reaction to our government. Every 4 years, we have an opportunity and an obligation to provide power to some group of national leadership. That so many choose to default on their obligation does not change this. As part of this social pact, we support the majority leader and position, knowing that every even year and every four years we can again attempt to sway others to our position and that if successful our personal favorites will enjoy the support of all of us for their terms. So Bush has no power except the power we have granted him, subject to our approval in 2004 to continue or be replaced. An attack on our chosen leader, no matter how slim his mandate, is felt on a personal level because of this.

    With this comes responsibility, and every time my country acts in a fashion I feel is counter to my beliefs, my values, I feel deeply and directly the shame of those actions. I personally bear responsibility for every mistake made by any and every elected leader I have helped place in power by my action or inaction. If there is a judgment day I am sure I will be held accountable for my government?s actions. The inverse is the pride I feel for all the good things about my country, because there is no America except for the people and the power we give to our leaders.

    This does not correlate to blind following as some believe. Rarely does any US leader have even a simple majority of full supporters. What he has is a majority of those who acknowledge we as individuals have given him 4 years to accomplish objectives and impress us enough for a second 4 years. As an individual I may agree with none, a few, most, or rarely all of his positions. Regardless, his power comes from me and my fellow citizens. To the degree that I can, I support him, knowing that if my preferred representative wins election he will have similar support.

    My military oath reflected this each time I took it. I swore to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, not some leader. I swore to obey the lawful orders of my superiors, not to blindly follow whatever order was given. I retained my responsibility for my actions. Individual sovereignty, limited by my choice for a set period of time.

    I don?t know that anyone who has not had such a perspective can ever fully appreciate or understand the American perception. How can you understand the depth of meaning behind the words ?We the People of the United States? if you can separate yourself from personal responsibility for the actions of your nation? Who is responsible for the US being in Iraq? I am. Me personally. It is my responsibility because of how I voted or didn?t vote in the 2000 election, because of the effort I made or didn?t make to get the current leadership elected. I am an American, I am the source of any power my government has, and I must bear responsibility for US actions.

    I hope this helps to enlighten at least a few of you as to why some of us have such a strong sense of patriotism. That we Americans are responsible for whatever good or whatever bad you may feel towards the United States. To understand that we Americans are our country, not simply subjects of some government. When you talk to us, you really are talking to the true power of America, its individual and sovereign citizens.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #2674735


      by dwdino ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      I am impressed! Very well stated and, I believe, quite accurate.

      I wish that more felt as you and I and would act, not just speak of pariotism and responsibility (almost a dirty word).

    • #2674725

      It’s an American thing…

      by road-dog ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      If I have to explain it, you wouldn’t understand.

      Well said, Oldefar.

      • #2674710

        OOOOOOOOOh small box your in Bob

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to It’s an American thing…

        To take such an open call for undestanding of you allies and say something like “it’s an American thing, if I have to explain it, you wouldn’t understand” is really negative to the intent of this posting.

        It puts you right back into that singular “we know best” box again. When someone goes out of his way to explain his feelings and speak on behalf of Americans, very eloquently too I might add, and you caome back with such a comment it makes the whole intent of the original post fade away into the “TYPICAL AMERICAN, IM BETTER THAN YOU CRAP”

        I won’t hold this against Ken though his post was well written.

        Damn, it only takes one bad apple to ruin the cider.

        Good job, Bob

        • #2674615

          Thanks for demonstrating my point

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to OOOOOOOOOh small box your in Bob

          Oldefar had to explain, you don’t understand….

          What’s really funny is that you manage to turn my posting into a “we know best” context where you superimpose your own beliefs on the posting then argue with it. That was not implied by me, it was inferred by you!

          I guess that’s where you get your own feelings of omnipresence, when you argue with yourself, you always win!

          As for being in a box, you are mistaken on that one also. It is you who is trapped in a box of your own design and manufacture. You do not allow yourself to see another side of things, as this would force you to defend your opinions from the actual argument. Better to create the opposing view, then attack it, because then your fragile self image is protected, because it is never really threatened. All this occurs inside the box. All debate happens internally, the actual opposing view is an internally generated illusion drawn upon the stimulus from outside the box.

          Once again, thanks for demonstrating how that interesting thought process of yours operates. I guess you demonstrate courage by documenting your descent into madness in so public a way.

        • #2674495

          Are you still on the same Topic of discussion here RoadDog?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Thanks for demonstrating my point

          Oldefar was trying to explain WHY american’s show so much partiotism that is seen as being rrogant to the rest of the world, wher eopther countries don’t wear thier pride on thier sleeve.

          You said: “it’s an American thing, if I have to explain it, you wouldn’t understand”

          That just goes to prove MY point NOT yours at all. You are then implying that people couldn’t understand Americans if they tried, I may agree here, but it is also degrading the reader by implying that you know better than other countries would understand.

          Like YOU said “It puts you right back into that singular “we know best” box again.”

          I can’t even begin to comprehend how you didn’t get that message straight.

          I’ve always said Americans don’t speak English, they speak American. Canadians speak Canadian. I’m starting to think that although your words are similar to English, they are built from a different language all together and don’t mean what English words do at all.

          Whatever, you’ll never understand the rest of the world anyway.

        • #2674479

          People say what they say,

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Are you still on the same Topic of discussion here RoadDog?

          but they also don’t say what they don’t say.

          Let me gear this toward someone with your limited cognitive abilities…..

          IF I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT, you wouldn’t understand. Oldefar explained his feelings and views, and did so most eloquently I will add. What you did was to draw absolutes and exclusions from his posting. As Oldefar pointed out, you obviously didn’t get it… Why, because you put what he said through your prejudiced “ugly American” filter, and proceeded to counter a bunch of points that he did not make.

          Once again, I did not imply, you inferred. There is a gulf of distance between the two. It’s quite obvious that you lack the ability to discriminate between the postings of others and your own predispositions, because you consistantly find conflict, by generating it if necessary.

          Did I say “non Americans couldn’t possibly understand”?…. No, Did you infer that it was said?… yes you did.

          Are you also inferring that you know Americans or Oldefar better than he does? Apparently you believe so. You attribute a level of arrogance to Americans that would confront you in the mirror, if your own hubris permitted it.

          The US is a unique culture and experience, not just because of democracy, government, or prevailing political party. America transcends definition, much as love does. It means different things to different people, but love just IS…America just IS.

          Like the Harley Davidson is to the biker community, if they have to explain it, you wouldn’t understand.

        • #2674437


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to People say what they say,

          You say “People say what they say,
          but they also don’t say what they don’t say.”
          Is that something confu*&d said?

          You state: “Did I say “non Americans couldn’t possibly understand”?…. No, Did you infer that it was said?… ”

          You had posted :”It’s an American thing…
          If I have to explain it, you wouldn’t understand.”

          Now I know you’re trying to be somewhat cryptic or wise to sound a little more intelligent but if you really look at what you said, YES you are implying that a “NON American” wouldn’t understand. It’s an American thing, meaning not a NON American thing. And unless I was an American I wouldn’t understand, therefore NON-Americans wouldn’t uinderstand.

          If that wasn’t your intent, try speaking English next time instead of trying to sound clever. Like I said, American and English are obviously two entirely different languages where the same words mean different things.

          So, in a nutshell, if your so strong and powerful, why do you all buckle like PMS ridden women(sorry to women with PMS, it must suck) when you have an opposition to your beliefs?

          unless one completely agrees with the way YOU see the world, they are ignorant and uneducated they don’t understand American’s (not that ANYONE ever will), posess as you say “limited cognitive abilities” did you look the spelling up first or did you ask your mum for that one?

          You have no point, you have nothing constructive to add, yet you feel you need to attack someone’s post due to your own limited cognitive abities.

          I never IMPLIED that I knew Americans better than oldefar, I also didn’t shoot down his comments, I merely asked questions based on what I and others see from America that opposed oldefars statements.

          I’m sure if oldefar neede to support his statements he’d have done so himself without your attempt at helping him.

          “As Oldefar pointed out, you obviously didn’t get it… Why, because you put what he said through your prejudiced “ugly American” filter, and proceeded to counter a bunch of points that he did not make.”

          This in itself shows that you have no comprehension of written material, do you have that heavy brow neanderthol look when someone asks you what you name is too?

          YOU and your attitude are the main reasons people see America negatively, it’s not people like oldefar who tries to explain where HE stands it’s people like yourself who tell others where THEY stand.

          Back in your box!

        • #2674434

          Call to arms

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Clever

          Hey road Dog, I was just browsing through scomments here and wondered;

          You say that I attacked oldefars posting with Anti American slander or whatever.

          I just can’t see where.

          I DID respond by saying I agreed with his explanations but then didn’t understand…

          At this point I merely stated how I saw america and how it leaves me dumbfounded that ony a few here have seen this that this side of GWB was not part of his campaigning and feel he has let America down, but you’ll find a political tag to downplay thier knowledge too, it’s in your nature.

          You seem to read something into nothing every time you click a link. Like a typical telemarketer, you get a picture of the person in your head and then start to build the person, you add a voice, a facial expression and ultimately end up way off base, as always done in telemarketing.

          Why don’t you apply to the local FBI offices and see if you can get a profiler’s job, you seem very confident that you know how to figure people out.

          I have spent a lot of time studying criminal profiling and the first lesson is to NEVER generate a mental picture of someone before you have solid evidence as a result of investigation.

          The mind is a tricky thing, you just don’t seem to be in touch with yours.

          yes, I am slamming you, yes you asked for it, yes I’m justified in calling you an idiot who stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and made incorrect assumptions.

          Now go and ask your mum for some more witty phrases you can retort with. YOU are the reason people don’t like Americans, not oldefar.

        • #2674424

          America is bigger than American

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Clever

          That’s my point. America is not just a place, It’s an idea, a concept, an intangible.

          … and no, my mom didn’t help me with my insults. I won’t insult your mom by alleging that you are her son. I’m sure that she takes great pains to hide that from the world.

          If my son were as devoid of tact, decorum, reason, and common sense as you are, I would exile him to Canada also. Since they haven’t deported your sorry ass, I assume that they suffer fools graciously there.

        • #2674421

          Yes you will, and you did.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Clever

          That’s all you seem to understand in order to defend your opinions.

          “I won’t insult your mom by alleging that you are her son. I’m sure that she takes great pains to hide that from the world.”

          “If my son were as devoid of tact, decorum, reason, and common sense as you are, I would exile him to Canada also. Since they haven’t deported your sorry ass, I assume that they suffer fools graciously there.”

          So by name calling that you’d be embarrssed to have me as your son, wouldn’t you then be insulting my mother, just as you said that you wouldn’t do?

          Grow up a little bit at least, your above statement shows NOTHING to back your title of the post at all, in fact not even a mere reference to your title. How does that support your opinion without just resorting to name calling?

          secondly how is that different from Canada, Australia or England for that matter. You see, by saying how wondeful america is, nobody minds, by saying that America is better than Canada, Australia or England, your pissing on someone else’s life no different than them not accepting yours.

          Now, you’ve probably noticed that very few will stand up and try to defend England, America or Australia against your allegations, why?

          1) They don’t care what you think, unlike how anti-American sentiment is taken by Americans.

          2) They know you as a loud, arrogant bunch anyhow and write it off as ignorance to the rest of the world.

          3) They just don’t give a damn and often criticize thier leaders also, without being called unpatriotic or Anti-??????

        • #2674035

          Go to Ebay

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to Clever

          And buy yourself an attention span. It should run you only a couple of bucks per linear second. Just a couple of minutes worth would make you make much more sense….

          I make my case here in great detail all the time. I recall that you once stated that you don’t use corroborating opinion and other sources, as you describe that as following. This being the case, it is you who often fails to provide any kind of convincing backing of his beliefs, which are nearly always based on generalities and outright falsehoods.

          If you haven’t noticed, you are one of VERY few with whom I get personal. This is because you are particularly obnoxious, combining abject ignorance and boundless arrogance into an incoherent cacophony of postings that offer nothing other than derision devoid of any real insight…

          I find it sad that you eschew any real love of your own country, but seem to feel it necessary to fault Americans with love for ours.

        • #2674428

          People who get it…..

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to People say what they say,

          What America is, and what it means to them.

          The Immigrant who leaves their homeland for a place where they will be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Folks who see America as the land of opportunity. Folks who scrimp and save to make sure that their kids attend college and succeed in an environment where their only limitation is themselves.

          The second generation immigrant who attends college that his parents can afford through their own sacrifice. They stand out in the classroom because of their effort just as much as for their accent.

          Immigrants who take their turn on the wall.

          You don’t need to understand Oz, there are plenty of folks who do. Not all of them are Americans yet, they have stout hearts and big dreams. They see America in a light that you never will.

        • #2674422

          Ok fair enough

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to People who get it…..

          You aer right in what you are saying. ( I think a second gerneration immigrant would be the English speaking American whereas the First generation immigrant would be the non-Engilsh speaking. ie. I am a first generation immigrant to Canada, my SON is second generation and is Canadian through and through, but that’s not what is relevant here.)

          I see exactly what you are saying and it stands for me as an immigrant to Canada too. It’s the land of opportunity, being from England and not a third world country, England is also a land of opportunity to me. Then again, so would France, Spain or any other first-world country.

          Opportunity and freedom is not too hard to find for most developed countries, with exceptions of course.

          I think what gets me is that Americans feel they are the only ones who truly are free and have opportunity. Whereas, I see that in Canada and a lot more predjuduce and hatred that leads to death is rampant in the USA. I don’t feel nor should I that you hve more freedoms than I, in fact from what I’ve read here, I have MORE fredom of speech and expression than is ‘politically correct’ in the states. You may have freedoms such as these but I see them as repressed by the politically correct. I don’t use predjudice names for other races because that not politically correct but I see the onus of being PC is much stronger in the USA, just by my and others comments that have been unaccepted by American peers (for being non PC) yet accepted by all others.

          perhaps we BOTH have the same reasons for loving our countries, perhaps niether is better off than the other. I rarely see a Canadian saying we have the best country or we have a sense of pride that others would not understand. I never see people stating they’d back our PM no matter what, we are feel to like or dislike the PM’s actions and speak out as we wish without being considered unpatriotic.

          If I disagree with someone who feels cretien made a moe wrong or right, I don’t get labelled as a Cretien hater or Anti-Canadian, yet this is exactly what happens when you question someones faith in GWB.

          Why would YOUR president recieve such unquestioned acceptance of EVERYTHING he does or says, no matter right or wrong just because you elected him? Were you aware of his intent beforehand and now he’s just living up to your expectations, if so fine, but I find it hard to believe that someone could be supoprted no matter what they did. Now THAT is an American thing I don’t think anyone understands, probably many Americans don’t even understand why, they just DO.

          Now based on the above statement, you should be able to see why I consider those who support BUSH no matter what as being blind.

          Can you not voice an opinion without repercussions as an American voter?

          If you were Republican and voted for BUSH but then found you didn’t feel his agenda was turning out as percieved, would you be tagged as a communist or democrat from that point forward because you realized your choice was misrepresented from the start? I wouldn’t think so, you can only go on what HE has TOLD you.

          I see elections are like car sales, there’s a certain amount of truth (often hidden in the cracks) with a large topping of BS to gain the popular vote.

          It’s not a metter of loyalty or pride, it’s common sense. We are all proud of who we are and for what we stand, we just don’t feel the need to constantly advertise it.

          American politics are as bad as anyone’s, I’m not saying you are the only country with an idiot at the helm. Quite the opposite, I think ALL coutries have an idiot at the helm, some good mixed with some bad, just like people are in real life, you take them for the good and help them correct the bad.

          What I’ve been getting at since day one here, you ar eNO different from anyone else, you have pride, you have faith, you love yuor country.

          Why is it that everywhere you turn, you feel it necessary to remind everyone of how great you are and then wave your flag while putting down the rest of the world and telling them they just wish they were American?

        • #2674001

          Now it just so happpens ….

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to People say what they say,

          that a Harley Davidson drew up alongside me at the lights a couple of days ago. It emanated an aura of quality, respect. I didn’t need this explained to me.

          So I don’t comprehend why certain Americans find it necessary to waffle on with a lot of codswallop and bullshit trying to explain something which you maintain can’t be explained anyway.

          The Harley Davidson exuded quality and uniqueness. Would I instinctively recognise you as a product of the most “unique and superior” culture on earth?

          Can’t you just get on with being superior and stop wasting other people’s time trying to explain your uniqueness?

          “And as the Harley Davidson took its rider off into the sunset, with its quiet but awesome elegance, the lone American dropped to his knees, praying that God would sent a ray of enlightenment into the minds of all those who were unable to recognise the innate superiority of Americans.”

        • #2735702

          Having come late to the party . . .

          by rwilson4 ·

          In reply to Are you still on the same Topic of discussion here RoadDog?

          I was proud of Oldefar’s eloquence and I also understood the statement to which you to exception. Then I read your pronouncements regarding that statement and was more than slightly amused when you made the following “point”:

          “Whatever, you’ll never understand the rest of the world anyway.”

          This strikes me as “the pot calling the kettle black” . . . you claim that the American was arrogant when he said that, if he had to explain it, you wouldn’t understand it and then you declare that he;ll never understand the rest of the world . . . is that not a bit arrogant as well?

          Perhaps, had the statement been “I can’t explain it if you don’t already understand it.”, you _might_ not have objected quite so strongly.

          Can your accurately translate the German term “gemutlich” into English? Would it be arrogant of a German to say, “If you don’t understand it, I can’t explain it.”

    • #2674720

      Consider yourself saluted…

      by mrbill- ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      That does say it! If I ever need anything penned I will contact you. I got goosebumps.

      BTW I agree

    • #2674712

      Very well said

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      And i can see what you’re are saying comlpetely and agree whole heartedly.

      what I haven’t understood though is how is electing YOUR leader any different than the other countris that vote thier leaders in to offfice? how does this make you unique?

      We vote for PM in Canada, we vote for local and provincial parties. Now the British didn’t vote for the Royal Family but they do vote in thier government.

      Secondly, GWBush did not win the majority vote of the majority of Americans. He won the election though. So are you then implying that ALL Americans have voted for this chosen person and then all should follow accordingly? What if I voted for someone else?

      If I ad voted for BUSH, if I were an American citizen, and he ws elected but then didn’t act the way he had portrayed himself or renegged on a promise that swayed my vote, how would it then be considered unpatriotic to not believe in him anymore. He’s let me down.

      The reason I use the term blind is because no matter HOW I had voted, if the elected official was acting in a way that is detrimental to the people of America, it would be MY JOB to dissuade him from more idiocy. For those who thought BUSH would be a good elected official and then can’t see he is destroying the country and back him or KNOW he’s a bad choice for America and still go along out of faith for the president, this is being blind to the cause, isn’t it?

      perhaps it’s just my morals and how I wouldn’t defend somone who had lead me astray or let me down. I’m sure you didn’t vote for bush because he said he would create war in two countries did you?

      Now I don’t want to be misunderstood or incorrectly labelled again, I’m just rying to nuderstand Americans. I’ve lived beside you for some time now, met many, worked with many and yes had the hots for a few americans but I just can’t seem to understand you as a people.

      It’s almost like trying to figure out a pet, you know when they are hungry or need to go outside but nothing else they do seems to make sense.
      Woof Woof, what was that??

      Aren’t ALL free country’s the same in the way they choose the leadership from a list of candidates and base an opinion on what thier objectives are? or is it, “YAY a vote, I’m a Democrat so I’ll vote for the Democrat, whoever it may be?”

      What I don’t understand about Bush is that there’s no way a man can be elected by campaigning for War in Iraq and Afghanistan. So to back this effort is not betraying your presdent, it’s his betraying YOU. Now if you like your elected official and then he decides to fight terrorists that have attacked you on your own soil, then yes I can see you supporting his cause and feeling that he has your better interests in mind, but when it comes to what has happened during ths attempted invsion of Iraq, how can you still al;l stand behind him saying “he’s our president, we back him no matter what?” It just doesn’t make any logical sense at all. To not see that he has mislead YOU as well as other parties involved, from what I’m told much more than just this war he has mislead you on other matters too, not that I can pinpoint or have any knowledge of and still back him after his letting you all down, isn’t that just being a blind conformist? I don’t care what he does, I voted for him so I’ll live with it and back my choice? Would it then not be an uninformed choice though?

      I am going in circles here becasue it boggles my mind. I love Canada, I love England. I liked Thatcher, but not everything she did and I was allowed to be selective in what I supported and what I didn’t, THAT’S FREEDOM of expression.

      I just don’t see how your elected government should be treated any different than any other elected government. Fundamentally, it’s the same thing right? A choice made BY the people FOR the people?

      What’s wrong with cretien anyhow? I dno’t like many choices he made and am allowed to say so, he is also the first leader of Canada to pull us out of debt and actually balance the budget time and time again, great work spending MY tax money. At least I have medical coverage instead of my name on a bomb.

      • #2674705

        Apparently Not

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Very well said

        What you miss is that I do not seperate myself from the actions of my government. Agree or disagree, I retain responsibility because my government serves me. Like a board of directors that signs on a new CEO to a 4-year iron clad contract. Within the boundaries of powers provided by the Constitution, for good or ill, he represents me on the world stage. Any mistakes he makes, any evil he does, are my responsibility.

        Those boundaries are important. The checks and balances established under the Constitution allow me to support or oppose the President via my actions on the Congressional races. The Supreme Court sits as a balance against hasty judgments.

        So in my mind, I am responsible for the US being involved in Iraq. I respond well to suggestions, to alternatives, to productive dialog on how I should do better. I respond defensively to insults and slurs. I feel personal shame when we stray from our core values whether or not I choose to share this on a public forum. I take my role as part of the US very much to heart. I am an American, I am America.

        • #2674670

          Sorry about that…

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Apparently Not

          The last line is over the top, even for me.

          Now here is the rest of the message. That same sense of responsibility, that feeling of ownership, and that ability to act in 2004 leaves the door open for anyone to make their case for Americans to shift support away from Bush. Sarcasm, rants, and tirades won’t do it, but a valid case might.

          The door is open, always has been. Will you step through, or simply stand outside and throw stones?

        • #2674486

          What’s the point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sorry about that…

          What’s the point in throwing stones at a brick wall?

          I have said WHY I don’t agree with Bush’s decisions, only to be quickly flamed as an un-American Bush hater.

          I haev also tried to express that I don’t DISLIKE America not am I UN-American (other than the fact that I’m NOT American) but I disagree with the Presidents actions and am stunned that people OUTSIDE America see through his crap and locals can’t. Especially when you all seem to be more infatuated with American politics than life itself.

          Postnig contrary information form other sources doesn’t help, they just throw that in with the BUSH hater group. Expressing personal thought or opinions on how I feel the war is being handled doesn’t work either.

          The only thing that comes out of ANY post that is not FOR Bush, is Anti-American, Bush hater.
          Your tags not mine. I’ve specifically said I don’t dislike Americans I just dno’t understand the thought process. I’ve also SHOWN the few nasty Americans here and how thier words speak much louder and to a much broader audience than thos who are decent people, the whole one bad apple thing.

          I have been tagged, given my political agenda, given my thought process and told about my ignorance then sent to slaughter.

          Before coming here, I didn’t know what political party BUSH was even part of. I didn’t know I was supposedly a socialist, then communist, then capitalist then Illibertarian or something??? How do YOU keep track of who you are with all these important titles flying around?

          I am very open to suggestion, I am very open in my opinions and my thoughts, My nimber one complaint here has been that others see Bush’s faults, even Americans have but they seem to turn a bind eye and support him anyway, as Jim has specifically expressed himself.

          How can you turn a blind eye when your leader is misleading his pubic or making political moves you DON’T feel are justified, you vote for your president and should be proud of your choice, but when he doesn’t live up to expectations, how can you still support him and not find someone better?
          By supporting him, those that are simply followers will see him as God, come the next election, he will once again be elected but this time due to public ignorance not his campaigning.

        • #2675386

          Bush reelection…

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to What’s the point

          There is a God so I don?t think he will be reelected. Saying that, I don?t know if there is a viable Dem candidate to defeat him. I like Joe L, but he will be skewed (or screwed) by his party.

          Oh well look at the bright side. Oz will have someone to blast for a few more years, if we all survive that long.

    • #2674708

      Side bar for Oldefar

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      I did notice a efw points that I object too and will not voice them here so as not to detract from your intent.

      I do find this a little far fetched though:
      “Who is responsible for the US being in Iraq? I am. Me personally. It is my responsibility because of how I voted or didn?t vote in the 2000 election, because of the effort I made or didn?t make to get the current leadership elected. I am an American, I am the source of any power my government has, and I must bear responsibility for US actions.

      I hope this helps to enlighten at least a few of you as to why some of us have such a strong sense of patriotism. That we Americans are responsible for whatever good or whatever bad you may feel towards the United States. To understand that we Americans are our country, not simply subjects of some government. When you talk to us, you really are talking to the true power of America, its individual and sovereign citizens. ”

      I don’t knwo if it is fitting to flatter yourself in thinking that you have THAT much control over the governments actions. You voted for someone who’s JOB was to SELL his ideas to the people and WIN thier vote, not EARN it. Even the most savvy buyer can be taken for a ride.

      To accept responsibility for Iraq is a little hard to swallow too, you had NO IDEA that he would attack Iraq when you voted him in. You did believe that he would act in the best manner to protect his integrity and support the people of the USA. His integrity has HUGE gaping holes in it now that may or may not have been seen during his campaign. I don’t feel he is acting in a manner that best supoprts the people of Alerica either. How you can claim or even accept responsibility for the unknown I just dont understand, perhaps a little too mush flag waiving by that point in your post, were you humming God Bless America in the back of your mind while typing, cmon, I bet you were weren’t you.

      It’s nice that you are so devoted to your country, just try taking mine (either of them) and I will stand up and be counted. I just don’t feel it is neccessary to spout how wonderful we are, how great we are, how Canada lead England to victory in WWII (moreso than the US did originally anyhow)I just like to be happy, I don’t need to have everyone think I live in the best country in the world, I know I like to be here and am happy with my life here. You don’t have to know I love Canada for me to actually love being here. You don’t have to like Cretien for me to be proud to live in Canada. You don’t have to believe in the royal family for me to have pride in what they have done for me.

      I have that pride and hold it near and dear to my heart, it’s my pride, my inner pride that gives me strength. I have it, I just don’t feel the need to advertise it in everything I do.

      Now perhaps, by some stretch of the imagination you will realize, you can be proud of your country and it’s government without the need for the rest of the world to think your the best to.

      It’s the guy that says he’s the best and has the best that is seen by all others as arrogant.

      When the elected leader you are proud of has his credibility turned inside out, it’s is often best to let him defend his actions, you voted for him based on his proposed actions, if he doesn’t follow through it’s not your fault and it’s not your job to support him, you believd in him, you voted for him.

      He mislead you, he is ruining your country’s good name and jeopardizing your lives in the process.

      • #2674668

        Position Neutral

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Side bar for Oldefar

        I haven’t stated whether I supported Bush in 2000 or not, nor if I support him today or not. This is because I feel responsibility regardless.

        Americans vote based primarily on how they perceive the character of the candidates and the parties those candidates are running under. Rarely is a single issue the factor. So the question from the American perspective is whether Bush varied from his perceived character, and if so if that was a negative or positive variance. The character issue shrinks in proportion to the defensive position American’s feel. The more under attack, the more we come together. Most countries react in this same fashion.

        As for pride in ones country – there was no intent to question anyone’s pride or patriotism towards their homeland.

        No, it is not self flattery to believe my vote counts, and my opinion can influence others. As so many have pointed out, the difference in Florida was small and with simply the regulars here on TR and ten friends each, we could have given Gore the election were we voting there.

        From your statement and the posts I have read, it seems like there is arrogance enough to go around. If you can accept that you find your beer and your view to be tops in the world and I find my beer and my view tops, and that we are each entitled to our opinion, I won’t consider you any more arrogant than you find me. Does that sound fair to you?

        I can’t surrender responsibility, though. Thanks for the easy way out, but I just can’t take it. Its that damned personal sovereignty thing again.

        I look forward to a future post outlining what others think America should be doing and why. Or even posts that state what people should be doing. I would welcome a greater sense of personal responsibility from everyone for the state of this small little rock we share.

        • #2674483

          The more under attack, the more we come together.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Position Neutral

          “The more under attack, the more we come together. Most countries react in this same fashion.”

          Of course, are you under attack then? NO

          Are you under a threat of being attacked by Saddam, logistically no but everyone is at risk when it comes to this man. I just don’t believe he has the resources and ability to attack you on your own soil.

          “No, it is not self flattery to believe my vote counts, and my opinion can influence others. As so many have pointed out, the difference in Florida was small and with simply the regulars here on TR and ten friends each, we could have given Gore the election were we voting there.”

          Isn’t that a weakness in your voting system rather than meaning that YOUR decision means YOU are responsible for actions that you were unaware of at the time you made it? If I decide to drive to Victoria (BC’s Capitol) and on the way I have an accident, does that mean it’s MY fault because I decided to drive to Victoria? No, it is an unforseen circumstance. There was nothing that hinted to me this would happen if I drove, there ws nothing that I should have been aware of that could have avoided it.

          I still don’t see why you would feel responsible for a decision that was made with good intent that bites you in the ass if you were unaware of the circumstance regarding your decision. You had no idea Bush would go to war, kill America and British soldiers and spend Billions of your tax dollars on it. Why should YOU take the rap while he sits in the White House or Air Force One.

          If the bomb was dropped, do you think he’d stand behind you? He’d be a few thousand feet in the air, saving his own arse so that he could attempt to be the new world leader when all is over.

        • #2674449


          by oldefar ·

          In reply to The more under attack, the more we come together.

          The comment about attack was in reference to the posts and to the general aspect of US bashing in the world media. If the intent of this approach is to sway US voting public opinion I believe it is the wrong approach. Since you acknowledge that it has been unsuccessful I thought you might want to consider a different approach. Time, money, security, knowledge, and prestige are the currencies. A positive exchange is the goal.

          The value of my individual vote is a fact, regardless if you feel this is a strength or weakness of the US system. We can have a seperate discussion on that aspect. As a fact, you can make use of this or not, as you choose.

          I acknowledge that you don’t see why I feel responsibility for my government. I haven’t a clue how else to explain it you at this point.

        • #2674436

          Stale mate?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Clarification

          You said: “I acknowledge that you don’t see why I feel responsibility for my government. I haven’t a clue how else to explain it you at this point.”

          From this I get the feeling that you are unsure yourself as to WHY Americans feel so strongly about thier chosen leader, but you FEEL your support more than you can justify it?!

          I can’t understand how people can back someone without justification, so I guess you don’t get where I’m coming from, I don’t get where you’re coming from. Both English speaking, Both in a free nation, both just a few hours apart (using Vancouver to Seattle for example). We would probably find we share a lot of similar beliefs, we may have the same taste in women, we may like similar music, but American plitics could never be understood or justified to a non America, making us farther apart than Canada is to England.

          Stale mate? (as in chess, not bad bread in England)

    • #2674703


      by john_wills ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      He loves his country best who strives to make it best. Oldefar’s personal responsibility seems appropriate. But one would expect a great deal of shame in a citizenry of true patriots, and this I do not notice in the U.S. The nearest equivalent is in pseudoliberal protests, which are often so dishonest that the protester obviously lacks personal integrity. The patriotic U.S.American should be ashamed of his country’s incompetence in the VN war, where it was certainly on the right side, but the nearest to shame invented stupid lies to justify the NVN aggression. The patriot will work against prosecutorial immunity, against abortion, against the on-going Nakba. Well, there are people working against abortion, in Birthright and the NRLC, etc., but no-one demonstrates against prosecutorial immunity, and those demonstrating against the Nakba do so because it’s a trendy-lefty thing to do more than out of genuine conviction. And even many of those working against abortion do so on grounds of conservatism rather than of human rights. I think Oldefar’s explanation may help us understand some aspects of U.S. chauvinism, but there is still more chauvinism than there is patriotism and genuine responsibility. Indeed, the responsibility level is so low that half the electorate doesn’t vote.

    • #2674672


      by jackofalltech ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      I need neither add to nor remove anything from your post. Very well done!


    • #2674649

      A land of sheep who need a shepherd ….

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      Thank you, Ken, for giving some insight into one of the most irrational attitudes I have ever encountered. Because of the laxity of Americans at voting time, you don’t even know if more than fifty percent of the population support Bush as the country’s leader.

      And then you surrender your will and intellect to him for four years. And then you render to him god-like powers: he who must be followed unquestioningly.

      Now supposing the other guy had won, he being one of those amoral Democrats. Would you have surrendered your will to him to the same degree? If yours is an example of how a true or typical American thinks, then I don’t want to understand. It is altogether too scary to contemplate that the citizens of a country volutarily abdicate their right to think and decide.

      And if Bush loses the next election, or stays for another 4 years, would you prefer your history books to declare that every decision made by Bush (or any other president for that matter) was the only possible correct one?

      This adulation of one man certainly makes America stand apart from other democracies. Already America is becoming its own little kingdom on earth. But not a heavenly kingdom, rather a kingdom of stupidity which will ensure in time that the rest of the world ceases to acknowledge your existance.

      By your declaration, I will assert most vehemently thank God I am NOT an American.

      • #2674628

        God thanks you also

        by jimhm ·

        In reply to A land of sheep who need a shepherd ….

        We are happy you aren’t an American either – OldFar did not say – he blindly follows his elected leader. We swore an oath to the Constitution to uphold it. Not to the leader of the country.

        That was what Hilter and Saddam had his troops do – swore a oath to him.

        It’s funny you must of stopped reading the post after the first paragraph because you are so far off base of what he said. Thats why I am happy you are an American – You do thing Halfway…and have a closed mind.

        Thank you for staying in your country –

      • #2674575

        Read Again

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to A land of sheep who need a shepherd ….

        Jules, I think if you read my post again you will find it is neutral on the any administration, that it makes no statement of following anyone blindly, abdicates no rights to think or decide.

        In less than a year, we Americans who accept our responsiblity for our government will be deciding on who will lead for the next 4 years. You have an opportunity to persuade Americans to take a direction you find preferable.

        Its entirely up to you whether you use this opportunity or not, and the approach you take if you choose to use it. As an observation, people tend to respond poorly to negative emotional statements – if it feels like a push they will likely push back in the opposite direction.

        Its entirely up to you Jules.

        • #2674030

          American patriotism …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Read Again

          It doesn’t seem to occur to some of you over zealous patriots that you are the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD who give a stuff whether your political system is the best in the world. We simply DON’T CARE

        • #2674024

          Sorry old chap …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Read Again

          but your initial statement is quite incomprehensible to me, and I will not accept responsibility for your inability to make your point clearly so that I may understand it.

      • #2674532

        Nation of Sheep

        by john_wills ·

        In reply to A land of sheep who need a shepherd ….

        That was the title of a book by Lederer (author of The Ugly American) ca. 1961. It “discusses the effects of the apathy and ignorance of the American people on United States foreign policy, relations with other nations, and use of foreign aid funds”. I read it in the 1960s and, alas, a lot of it is still true. How many U.S.Americans know that $3m/day of foreign aid goes to a state that keeps a third of its populace in disenfranchized exile on grounds of race and ethnicity? Or that that state gets away with bombing USN ships in places inconvenient to it? How many know that a state which since its last revolution has demonized and been demonized by the U.S. is a democracy, but was a U.S.-protected despotism for decades before? Or that since its revolution that state has been the victim of a 10-year war launched with U.S. weaponry by a criminal the U.S. is now seeking? How many know that the International Criminal Court, which the U.S. at Israeli behest is trying to sabotage, was a U.S. idea, supported originally by, among others, Rep. Richard M. Nixon R-CA? Why do I read The Economist rather than Time, Newsweek or U.S. News and World Report? No, JimHM, I am afraid that many U.S. people live in a world too unreal for them to be personally sovereign.

        • #2674484

          John that post was from Jul646 not me

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Nation of Sheep

          That post was from Jul646 not me …

        • #2674480


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to John that post was from Jul646 not me

          Nice to know that there are two of us that have absolutely no idea what the world is all about.
          IOf we are lucky enough peahapse outr American saviours will lead us well and teach us how to respect our government.

          For a while I was starting to feel like that repressed Pink Floyd as the wall wrapped around him before The Trial.

      • #2674419

        I am an Australian …

        by jardinier ·

        In reply to A land of sheep who need a shepherd ….

        We, too, have a constitution which I happen to find quite satisfactory. I get an opportunity to participate in the election of our leaders. I am also permitted to openly criticise my leaders at any time I like.

        I am proud of my country because it is comprised of averagely decent folk, with a great sense of mateship and pulling together to help others in times of crisis. Per capita, we also happen to be a nation of high performers in many fields. When our government calls us to participate in some military conflict, we go and put our hearts into it.

        So there you have it. I don’t need reams of esoteric mumbo-jumbo to explain why I am proud of my country.

        • #2675359

          Be proud of Australia…

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to I am an Australian …

          … you should be proud. You created a great nation out of a wilderness. Oz and the other Englanders should be proud of theirs. People from other nations should be proud of their homelands. Can I not be proud of mine? Ok our leadership may need an overhaul, that is why we hold elections on a regular basis. Yes we are a little arrogant, but who isn?t, or at least hasn?t been in the past. We make mistakes, who doesn?t. We may not be an old nation but, for good or bad, we are a leading nation. Some in the world look down on us for trying to make a difference, but others look up to us for caring to make a difference.

        • #2675282

          Nice sentiment

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Be proud of Australia…

          And I agree fully that ANYONE has a right to be very proud of thier country and be petriotic towards it.

          My complaint has never been that Americans shouldn’t be proud or that they don’t have anything to be proud of.

          I am proud of Canada and England, both have welcomed me and helped me immensely. I rarely spout my pride for Canada or England to ANYONE because I know it isn’t fitting. They also have a country to be proud of.

          As for politics, I’ve said before that I don’t really care for politics or politicians. This is merely because in Canada I cannot vote for anything other than Provincial elections and the PM is out of my reach.

          I have been tagged as unpatriotic and said to not have feelings toward England OR Canada because of this, which is of course pure crap. I don’t love everything done in the Canadian government or England’s, this doesn’t make me a hater of my country. I think that both thatcher and cretien BOTH did some good and some bad, it hasn’t directly effected me as to how I conduct my day to day life so I guess all in all they’ve both been OK to me.

          With regards to American politics, I feel exactly the same, the part that irritates me is that when I doubt something Bush has said, it DOES effect MANY people around the globe. His actions are very large in scale and impact many people’s lives.

          I don’t think republicans are better or worse than Democrats, Socialists, Liberalists ro anyone for that matter, they are just another party with another agenda.

          In the case of GWB latest actions with Afghanistan and Iraq, I am appalled to see so many American citizens standing behnid him whether they feel he is wrong or right, this I just truly cannot comprehend, it makes no logical sense at all. If I had voted for Bush and he acted the way he has, I’d be furios, I’d withdraw ALL support for hmi the same way he failed to keep his promises to me, I wouldn’t just fold and say “maybe next time” as many have said here.

          Americans aren’t bad people, they aren’t WRONG, I just see it as complete ignorance if a person (non-politically inclined) can see obvious faults and discrepencies in his statements (or allegations), how can the American citizens NOT see these things with the amount of importance that is placed on politics in America. You’d think everyone would be qualified to run themselves with the amount of information dug up here. I think it is complete disregard for GWB’s actions that make me call Americans SHEEP and CONFORMISTS. It isn’t ignorance of politics, it’s been shown here that you all have a good sense of politics, it’s ignorance because of not seeing the forest through the trees or simply turning a blind eye to fact or even exploring accusations.

          I know if someone was to point out Cretien’s faults as he was actively carrying out a campaign, I’d look into thier allegations and try to confirm the truth myself, I wouldn’t just say that he’s the PM so we have to agree and believe him, that’s completely insane!

          Perhaps you can see WHY I feel the way I do and that I’m not simply Anti-American as I’ve been so colorfully labelled by those who wish to only see Bush’s qualities and simply refuse to question his true actions and motives.

          These same people will adamantly support BUSH and quickly dismiss allegations of his incompetence by sloamming the posters character without addressing the question asked. It’s almost as if someone doesn’t support GWB, then they are mad and don’t warrant having an opinion. I see this as being blind and following like sheep. I understand someone TRULY believing the Iraq war is for Liberation and Democracy of the people, just say so or show something that GWB has done to confirm your beliefs.

          On the other hand, if someone says he is NOT credible, they should be able to offer contrary information without it being disregarded as Anti-Bush slander, especialy when documents are generated from a credible source.

          This constant instant dismissal of fact is being chalked up as the POSTER is Anti-American, not “hey here’s something I haven’t seen, perhaps it’s true and I’ll do my own investigation”.
          Just “you’re an Anti-American Bush hater, your country should be ashamed of you” NOW THAT’S IGNORANT.

          Why is it that you can’t be proud of your country and your politicians without everyone else in the world recognizing it? Why must you constantly wave your flag in everyone’s faces?

          It is this form of OVER patriotic behavior that makes people look upon America as self serviant and arrogant. We are the best F*&K the rest, and if you don’t like it, you never helped us and you’re lucky we saved you. It’s SICK!

        • #2675260

          The reason I support the president

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Nice sentiment

          Hmm..first of all whether he is a democrat or republican I would have supported him no matter what action he took even though I may not agree with it. Which brings me to my next point, Canada nor England or for that matter other countries didn’t lose 3000 people. YES thats THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE (look around your office and find 100 people thats a LOT huh? multiply that by 30) who had NOTHING to do with the middle eastern policy that was justified by the terrorists. You didn’t have to watch both buildings come down from your backyard. Of all the countries and nation-states in the history of the world noone has had more power than the US and noone has done more good (yes thats relative we will get to it) for the world than US. After I see that we gave millions of dollars to the Palistinian cause, or to save France’s arse twice all we get is a big middle finger from them. So give the president some credit, cause hell if it was me in that white house I would have turned the Middle East into a piece of glass and nuked them to the stone age (like they actually need help) after the first plane strike.


        • #2675237

          An attempt at understanding

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to The reason I support the president

          For a start, the UK and Europe have been putting up with terrorism for decades before the September 11th attack. Victims of such over the psat fifty years probably approach your 3K value. You also have to remember that a lot of the people in those buildings were from nations outside of the US. 67 of them were from the UK, 170 of them were from France, 25 from Canada, . The US, in the long run, was forced to look at terrorism as a genuine domestic threat for the very first time two years ago. In many ways, it was pushed into the deep end, and the resulting culture shock and public outrage/incredulity made the US willing to strike back.

          Your understanding of the historical, political, social and cultural causes and implications of the entire sordid affair of the past two years seems patchy at best. Your statements of the US being the strongest nation ever to exist are certainly valid by anyone’s standards, yet the “no-one has done more good” are arguable at best, and haven’t particularly been elaborated upon. They do bear relevance to the situation at hand.

          Your views, by my estimations and from my observations, are not uncommon amongst The American lowest common denominator, yet there are countless sound and valid arguments attesting to how the course of actions you applaud will not result in the betterment of the situation.

        • #2675235

          A humbled Thank You!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to The reason I support the president

          All roses and smiles adn rainbows, yes that’s Bush, all snakes, nasties and creepy crawly’s, that’s the rest of us, damn ungrateful bunch if you ask me.Especially after seeing the economic impacts on your your poor downtrodden society.

          I am in NO way trying to detract from the sheer horror of the terrorist attack on the WTC, I genuinely feel for the poor survivors who have to live with this horror for the rest of thier lives.

          Another shocking thing is the fact that there were Approx. 6800 Insurance claims made for people lost in the trade center, this shows a disgusting capitalization on a horrific disaster. These terrorists must and will by a UNIFIED action be brought to justice or death. Unfortunately, I feel that this single handed invasion will end in much more death and destruction than by FULL Allied cooperation.

          Prior o the invasion, C.Powell proudly stated that this would be a quick war (5-6months) and that they wouldn’t last as long as the Iranian forces did (10 minutes?). I really see this as getting MUCH worse before better and the terrorism continuing for MANY years to come as these forces are already said to be rebuilding stronger than before.

          You’re right in saying – “You didn’t have to watch both buildings come down from your backyard. Of all the countries and nation-states in the history of the world noone has had more power than the US and noone has done more good (yes thats relative we will get to it) for the world than US. ”

          I got to watch them on TV but I get your point.

          Like you said:- “Canada nor England or for that matter other countries didn’t lose 3000 people” Sorry I don’t mean to be rude or anything but LOL 😛

          It brings back memories of when I lived in London for a few years, the remnants of WWII bombings where all around you, I used to be so interested in meeting the survivors of the London Blitz. The stories of honor, the bomb shelters in my backyard and the comradery and pride these people held with a stiff upper lip while they cheered for the RAF as they as they dropped another Luftwaffe fighter on a housing project.

          The Canadian soldiers fought alongside British soldiers from the onset of the war, many years before the USA was bombed into action, Canada lost a few I suppose but again nothing near the 3000 mark I’m sure.

          You’re right Britain and Canada haven’t lost 3000 I mean that’s more people than all the igloos in Canada could hold!! You’d have to be one HUNGRY Polar Bear that’s for sure!

          Now I know 3000 people from these two completely tiny and insignificant countries didn’t get killed but the NAZI’s were still a pretty rotten bunch.

          In closing I thank you for reminding us (being all the OTHER countries) of our insifgnificance. Moreso I thank you for reminding me of your SUPER ability to kill each other with your powerful weapons and a few of us every now and then, ‘friendly fire’ how kind.

          I think I’ll wave YOUR flag on the proch this weekend, are you waving yours?

          Here’s an interesting thread that may help you see some of the the positive actions BUSH was taking BEFORE the war.

        • #2675224


          by garion11 ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          Of course you are insignificant, after US was forced to come into WWII save your arse (otherwise you’d be speaking German today my friend :P) what happens when US needed and wanted its allies to follow its lead in going after the terrorists?? Yeah, exactly. Thanks for your help, no really. You can be sure one day it will be repaid.

          My god man, its in your interest to get these terrorists but the only thing you do is compare Bush to Hitler, wow!!!. This is exactly what happened pre WWII, Hitler was given anything he wanted, noone really stood up to him, and peace came in the form of a German flag. How about them French?

          Bah, whats the point? its the same crap, the same jealousy of US, its wealth, and its power. Oh yeah, by the way, we don’t give a damn on how you think we should act. Why should we? when you don’t when we ask you to?

        • #2675221

          US was forced to come into WWII save your arse

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          Your statements are interesting. When I’ve said that’s what Americans think, I’ve been quickly told that only a misinformed idiot would think linke that. You realize that not many of your EDUCATED peers would back your BS.

          You have an old and poorly educated attitude that’s been corrected MANY times here.

          You said: “US was forced to come into WWII save your arse (otherwise you’d be speaking German today my friend ”

          The ONLY reason you joined the war was because YOU were bombed because you were trying to mess with OIL in Japan. Noy out of some stroke of decency. When Canada joined England and it’s allies at war, Alericans refused to become involved ans stayed home. Read another book.

          You also state: “My god man, its in your interest to get these terrorists”

          There has never been any question as to whether these men needed to be captured. You’ve tried twice and failed so far so don’t even go there, you don’t have a leg to stand on. The Taliban are alreadu rebuilding and are said to be stronger and more focused on terrprism than ever before. You’ve got one coming, BIG time.

          The USA never SAVED anybody’s arse in WWII, again learn some history before shouting you rmouth off, the USA joined the war when Hitler was too thin to aquire Southern England and launch his invasion. It is well documented how the RAF was obliterating the Luftwaffe and that because the French had literally LEFT France, he was left to occupy France with Nazi troops. With this and all his other European occupations it would have been virtually impossible to invade England.

          Your troops fought hard and lost lives as did EVERYONE else in WWII. The ALLIED forces ended WWI but the USA DID NOT win WWII. Nobody WINS a war anyhow.

          I have often commented on the ignorant mindset of some Americans, and have also wondered if it was a result of your substandard educational system or your inaccurate history book or teachings.

          Perhaps you could enlighten me a little and explain how you derived on these conclusions.

          Would you be able to support such comments with FACT? I didn’t think so.

          I think you need to brush you rteeth for bedtime now, mom will come and read you a story soon.

          Nighy night,

        • #2675220

          P.S. Nice Bio

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          What did you do, cut and paste quotes to at least appear educated?

          You shouldn’t have said anything, it gave you away.

          You could have picked some better quotes to model yourself on.

        • #2675141

          Root of Evil…

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          Money is NOT the root of all evil? ?The LOVE of money is the root of all sorts of evil? 1Ti 6:10. Read the whole book not just some ones out takes.

          Hitler could have successfully invaded England but he would have had to occupy it with such a large force he would have been strapped for troops anywhere else. His main focus in invading the west was to remove the threat when he invaded Russia, his main objective. More than anything else it was Mother Russia that defeated Hitler. Millions of Russians paid the price for the victory the Allies shared.

          The oil embargo on Japan was not over control of the oil but to try to stop Japanese aggression in the Far East, boy that worked well.

        • #2676502

          Thus my point

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          the Nazis were spread WAY too thin to launch a successful incasion of England.

          I’ve seen a few what if’s regarding Hitlers actions in WWII, they clearly documented how with his Nazi troops spread across Western Europe and then the French completely evacuating France his troops were needed against Hitlers will to occupy the country instead of simply governing the country.

          The RAF was wiping out the luftwaffe very successfully, if he had been able to conquer the channel islands, IOWight, IOMan etc he MAY have been successful as he would have had a close range base. His three attempts to bomb the forces off of these islands were unsuccessful and he was at his wits end as to how to gain control of Southern England. During this yime, the US, British, Canadian and other Allied forces launched the full scale D-Day invasion, which would have been much more difficult without the efforts of Canadian troops who were the first to start clearing the surrounding areas as the Allies were due to arrive.

          Hitler didn’t take England, he was bombarded when the troops hit the beach and once again turned the tides of WWII. the sheer volume of fresh soldiers and experienced leaders was enough to take down the already tired and thinned Nazi troops who had been at war for nearly five continuous years already.

          All of Europes western countries are very happy to have defeated Hitler, the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia and other aliied forces combined to an undefeatable force.

          The USA didn’t save Western Europe, England owes nothing to the USA for joining the force other than a thank you for your support as all other countries did too.

          I haven’t heard too many Australians claiming to have WON WWII and saved England, nor Canadians, and they were at war LONG before the US involvement. Thier assistance and support will never be forgotten but then again, we aren’t going to bow to you for your help. You now what you did, you know where your pride stands and rightly so. Don’t wear it on your sleeve and make us hate you too, is all I ask.


        • #2676486

          You missed my point

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          ?Hitler didn’t take England, he was bombarded when the troops hit the beach and once again turned the tides of WWII. the sheer volume of fresh soldiers and experienced leaders was enough to take down the already tired and thinned Nazi troops who had been at war for nearly five continuous years already.?

          I have no idea of what you are talking. If Hitler had been inclined to invade England and ignore Russia he would have been able to take it. He would have had a very tough go of holding it without the widespread slaughter of Brits. His troops were not tired of ?nearly five continuous years? of war. They had been at it for less than one, all victoriously, they were more than a match for the beleaguered Brits. The Luftwaffe could have defeated the RAF if Goering had not kept switching targets. He was two days away from destroying the RAF, twice.

          One troop of Canadians reached their objective on D-Day, no other Allied unit did. However the Brits and Canadians were unable to clear Caen on schedule, or anywhere near it. The great Monty could not solve that problem.

        • #2676447


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          It’s always nice to see the differences in how history is reported.
          You have rewritten anything I’ve read but that’s OK, I usually only dig up the old war stories and not the actual historical events as they are recorded.

          DDay was in 1944, supposedly.
          The war began in the late 1930’s, again from what’s reported. That would be approx. 1939 to 1944. You’re right, it WAS only a year. The USA wasn’t late to the draw and the two thwarted attempts you mention at taking the RAF must have been successful after all. From what I’d heard, damn British school propaganda, the RAF wasn’t defeated by the Germans, now I know they were and thank you for sharing your wisdom.

        • #2676442

          Complete Idiots Guide to WWII

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          The following is a section of The Complete Idiots Guide to WWII.

          German Luftwaffe was being DEVASTATED by the RAF and ground forces.

          German campaign was spread too thin.

          Hitler could not logistically invade England.

          If he were to succeed in his objectives, he would have a two sided war between Russia AND England (apparently the same mistake made in WWI).

          You mat want to get a copy of this “War for Dummies” book and have a little review.

        • #2676406

          Max message reached, reply to the posts above

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          Heh, we are flattered that you already think we failed in getting those terrorists. I guess you had a timline, we should have gotten them by tea time perhaps? WE are that good, yeehaw!. Thank you for your flattering phrases.

          SOOO, maybe you should ask the French on whether they got their butt saved or even the English or how about the WHOLE European continent?? Did we go at it alone, NOOO, and I never said we did. But you sure as hell in no way would have won that war if it wasn’t for the US help. Even when we weren’t in it, we still supported you logisticaly (some secret and some open).

          Yes wars are won, lost, and are tied, its a game like anything else with an inevitable outcome.

          Its ok, you already hate us, its plain old jealousy of the US wealth and power. No one simply gives a damn about what you think post 9/11. So piss off! :).

          Its interesting that you think our education system is backward considering US is the largest economy in the world. Thats right we have trees that grow money, and wait, wait, it rains gold here did you know that? But the definition of education is so relative, you would think that, since we don’t preach enough Marxist “ideals”.

          And which quotes would those be, “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”?? or some variation of it?.

          No, love of money is not evil, its UNEARNED money which is the root of all evil.

          Have fun organizing.

          So please sit in a corner and let the adults speak.

        • #2676404

          When you are able

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          When you are able tto formulate an accurate response based on fact and back it with supoprting information, I may take a little notice of your efforts.

          it is OBVIOUS you have absolutely NO idea regarding WWII or the state of current affairs either so I ask you to kindly do some study before taking up my headspace.

          There is another thread titled: U.S. Dollar vs. the Euro: Another Reason for the Invasion of Iraq

          I think this coupled with: US Corporations have a Chokehold on the US Media:

          and “The Complete Idiots Guide to World War II” may help you understand what REALLY happened.

          You can look at a few free pages but you could get your mom to buy you the book if you claim it is educational, she’ll probaby be impressed with you interest in study.

          Your Republican government owns ALL of the media in the US. how do you actually expact to hear and see the truth unless you look outside.

          By the way, the USA is VERY unpopular worldwide these days, I don’t think ANYONE wishes they were American. Believe me, I am in Canada, I could move to, work and live in the USA in a heart beat, if I chose. Jealousy isn’t part of it, however if I WAS American, I’d probably be lead to think everyone was jealous of the dump too.

          Do some reading and actually think about your position in the world for once instead of just churning over the same BS we’ve all heard for years from your delusional citizens.

        • #2676375


          by garion11 ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          OMG, LMAO. Republican Media???, muhahahahahahaha. Shut the hell up. UP to this point I was willing to listen to what you had to say, I believed that you had valid information. Your idiotic statement in the last post more than proves it. Stop listening to your Left wing media, sheesh. YOu have NOO IDEA about what media is like in this country, NONE whatsoever. YOur right wing media is soo far left, you guys don’t have a right anymore. Its all one big happy Left wing family. Thats why you are getting these distorted images of why you think we view our president and our country the way we do. Just shut up, discussion over, I can’t believe I wasted my valuble time responding to your posts, gah!. When you decide to grow up maybe I will give you the honor of talking to me. Buh bye.

        • #2676361

          Well that was easy

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A humbled Thank You!

          That’s it? You sure fold fast! Man you didn’t even offer a single supporting argument for your little rant!!

          Your last post offered not a single ounce of evidence to back your point.

          You resorted to simply slamming a political view as well as my intellingence and completely side stepped the issue of discussion in a single post.

          This is actually very common here, they come and go like pets in the pet store. You try not to become attached by not using names and keeping a sort of professional attitude. One minute they are all YADA, YADA, YADA, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, the next minute it’s forget the issue at hand, blame the messenger, make some ranting statements without any supporting fact to be found and Bye,Bye, They’re gone again.

          Just like they never existed.

          Good thing your Leader had enough money for his smoke and mirrors campaign! If they all fold under the opposition as easy as you did, there’d BE no campaign, debate or election.

    • #2674635

      Correct Power = responsibility

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      I agree with your analysis of the relationship between a citizen of the USA and its government. However, you imply that this relationship is unique to the USA when it is not (individual soveriegnty and the same relationship is enshrined in the laws of many other countries, just in a different manner) and you forget that the majority of USA citizens forget that the USA Constitution is a contract between the individuals and the government with responsibilities going both ways; many see it as the govt having responsibility to them not the other way.

      What confuses the hell out of many of us non-USA people is how anyone can look at the USA consitution, choose not to vote in a presidential election and then abuse the elected president for doing the job that he was elected to do. Yet many USA citizens do this and try to blame everyone else but themselves. They fail to fulfill their half of the contract and then get pissed off when the other party does their’s, which is simply ‘govern as I think best for the country’. His thinking may not be the best but that is what he was elected to do and is doing.

      In his book ‘The Moon is a Harsh Mistress’ Robert Heinlein has one character speak on politics and he explains that no government should ever have the power or authority to do anything that its individual members are not prepared to do, if it is right for the govt to do it then it is right for an individual to do the same thing under the same circumstances. Thus if it is right for the government to kill convicted murderers, then it is right for any citizen to kill convicted murderers; and this applies all down the line. he also accepts that the individuals who put a govt in place MUST bear responsibility for the actions of the govt that is acting on theri behalf.

      One important aspect of the contract represented by the USA Constitution that many forget is the responsibility of the individual to support, maintain and defend the country and the constitution. The last time the USA citizens forgot this in large numbers was in 1860 and we all know what a hell of a mess that made, the country still suffers from it today.

      I think it was Thomas Jefferson who best stated the constitutional contractual relationship between the people and the USA by saying ‘the price of liberty is the blood of patriots and there are times when this price must be paid’, or something similar.

      • #2674594

        Many Good Points and One Core

        by dwdino ·

        In reply to Correct Power = responsibility


        The USA was founded on personal responsibility. Each free individual having and upholding a responisibility to chip in and make this country what it should be. The right to vote, the duty to defend, and the opportunity to change where established to instill a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. This standard worked until men quit beeing men and the consequences of actions were rebelled aqainst witht the turning away of morality.

        Funny, or rather sad, how the US society has sought to strip God from every public forum or setting since the 1960s and yet on Sept. 11 2001 the nation as a whole came pounding on His door step … Shouldn’t be “God bless America”, rather, “God forgive America and be merciful on a repugnant society”.

        I am an American, but struggling to be proud of such. The societly whole has/is becoming entirely selfish, spineless, devoid of morals, and irresponsible. Whith the destruction of families and values, how can we expect anything less than public humiliation and international disrepsect.

        The American populus has turned from a people of doers to a people of be-ers (sp). Which many everything but produce very little. We send any jobs that require labor over seas, because that is a “lesser econonmy”. We will eventually sell ourselves out too such a position as being completely incompetent and incampable.

        Many children are being brough up completed debased. Their parents (dare I call them that, more of legal guardians) hand them clothes, cell phones, cars, and any other amenty within their means; grant them freedoms beyond the children’s wisdom; require no consequences for choices or actions; and expect the children to find a solid morality without teaching or discipline. This is absolutely REDICULOUS! And these are the ones being molded to lead after us …

        America, the once great society is following Rome into an entertainment and immediate satisfaction standard which always leads to destruction. Our debt is running rampant, our society crimes are numerous.

        Americans need to quit focusing on “my rights” and “my freedoms” and return to “my responsibilities” and “my duties”. The easy way has been taken for far to long.

        For those who have access to American TV, look at the recent Hanes commercial for the new underwear product. The commercial shows a few scenes of men lounging in the new product; but notice the settings: 1) Man on couch watching game, to lazy to get to remote, so dumps table, dropping all in the floor, save remote, which is success. 2) Man teaching son how to waste the day watching sports reclined in the living room. Understand I do enjoy a game like most others, but it is the focus on lazy self gratification I question. Where are the scenes of father and son working in the yard, the car, spending all Saturday remodelling the bathroom for the wife/mom.

        Me, me, me is really getting old.

        Eebywater, I believe the quote you’re referencing is: “From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

        • #2674584

          Very good –

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Many Good Points and One Core

          You are correct – the youth of today and the parents of today are raising a group of irresponsiblity. “It wasn’t My Fault!” – Parents don’t want to be parents, they hand the kids money, cars and cell phones and say go out do what you want – I am tired leave me alone.

          They want the schools and government to raise their kids with morales and social values they need. Problem with that is that the Government and Schools are very socialist and implant in the kids that the government owes them something.

          Kennedy did make one great statement which changed the youth of that day… “As Not What Your Country can do for you, But what you can do for your Country!”…

          I work with many youths in volunteer fire and EMS and they just don’t want to take the responsibility that comes with the truf. It isn’t their jobs – someone else can do it, Mommy or daddy did for me.

          We can only pray that this socialized ideas will begin to die as the Conservatives take more power away, and parents begin to take an active role in their childrens lives. Instilling in them responsibility for their actions, responsibility to committments made, responsibility to vote and hold the government and its leaders accountable.

          You seen it in the second Clinton term – he was charged with womenizing – lying to congress and other treasonist acts. But a majority didn’t care he seemed like a nice guy, it was Monica that offered the BJ he accepted wasn’t his responsibility. Just like Kennedy – who though all Kennedys were above the Law.

          Individual responsibilites goes far beyond that of elected leaders – it goes to the fabric of life in America. At one time a persons word was honored, today thanks to lawyers you need 50 pages of contract then they will still get around that.

        • #2673885


          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Many Good Points and One Core

          Thanks for the correction, one of the few things the USA has usually done right is to insist that its children REALLY learn its history and thus they get to know these things. Us poor foreigners have to go with memories of quick glimpses in history books of other countries or try to remember the actual quotations from some older, but nearer the truth Hollywood films.

        • #2675110

          really knowing U.S. history

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Thanks

          Here is a problem I sometimes put to U.S. high-schoolers, especially if they’re discussing history on the bus. In 1776 Great Britain had 27 American colonies; of those, 13 seceded and formed the U.S.; why those 13? Here is a question definitive of the republic, yet no-one seems to know the answer. Just what do Massachussetts and Georgia have in common that they do not have in common with Nova Scotia or Bahama? Bermuda and Nova Scotia did send delegates to the Continental Congress, but why didn’t Jamaica? And why did those two not continue with the secession?

        • #2676348

          Common grievances

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to really knowing U.S. history

          Now this is my personal opinion base don what I have read about the times, I have yet to see a professional historian try to fully analyse this particular question, most do even see this question at all.

          You have to remember that there were major differences in the way some of the colonies operated and how people lived their. Also the British governement treated some colonies different to others. The main point of commonality was the grievances that they had.

          The Continental American Colonies (CAC) were fairly well developed (for their day) by free citizens and virtually no local nobility above the slave holders worth talking about. Most owned their land and had a living standard much higher than the average citizen in England. The CAC citizens were basically self dependent as far as essentials were concerned, but they were importing a great deal of luxuries. Not many people would see tea as a luxury but the average free citizen in England made their own tea from inferior local plants. The imported Indian tea was a luxury good for the aristocracy and rich traders; yet in CAC the average citizen was buying and drinking the imported tea. This difference in affluence and attitudes between the colonial citizens is the core aspect that you seek.

          When you examin the average lifestyle in Novia Scotia and Bermuda, etc at that time it was very different. In Bermuda and there abouts there was a larger level of British aristocrats on the ground and in control with the majority of locals NOT drinking imported tea. In Novia Scotia the majority of colonists were employees of the Hudson Bay Company and had enough trouble just staying alive in the harsher environment, again most used local plant variants for their tea.

          Then you add in the fact that most of the CACs have some sort of representational legislator with some say in the local government, most of the other colonies did not have such a high level of local involvement in the government.

          Add into this mix the fact that the majority of the taxes being levied at that time were to enable the British government to conduct war efforts elsewhere in the world in places that the CAC citizens were not interested in. They saw the money as being syphoned off for luxurious living in England by the King.

          Thus you come down to a group of affluent independent thinking and acting yeomanry used to managing their own affairs getting upset with what they see as a basic staple being excessively taxed- have grievances against the British aristocracy who are levying the taxes on what they see as a luxury good. The yeomanry have always been the core of the British fighting forces. Whereas the other colonials were not affluent enough or free enough to have the same grievances or be so upset by them.

          Personally I think the conflict between the CAC citizens and the British govt were inevitable deu to the differences in local social organisations. The ‘What if questions’ concern how the conflict would have been handled if it happened 10 years earlier or 10 years later. depending upon who was in charge of Parliament in England it could have been much blooier or no blood at all.

        • #2676222

          historical analysis

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Common grievances

          eebywater has done some thinking, and I suspect an investigation of tea imports in the 27 colonies would be of interest. However, a lot of NS people were yeoman farmers, and practically all the White folk in Canada (i.e. Quebec + Ontario) were. There was in Barbados a slave-owning aristocracy similar to that in SC, quite different from the yeomanry up north. So I don’t think eebywater has found the commonality of the 13. An interesting point is that 2 colonies which did not join the revolt, Ohio and Florida, are now states of the Union. These were both being administered with the interests of the Indians in mind. During the revolutionary war Florida was lost to Spain (the U.S. got it later) and at the end of the war the U.S. got Ohio despite the wishes of the inhabitants, GB being too tired politically to resist. If we look at the detailed grievances in the Declaration of Independence we find a complaint about an arbitrary form of government in a neighboring province, which means that in Quebec Catholics were going to get the vote; this explains very neatly why Quebec did not join the revolt. But most of the grievances would apply as well outside the 13 as in them.

        • #2686920

          Not as deeply

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to historical analysis

          The major thing to look at is the difference in general affluence, those pushing the succession had stronger economies and more people with time to think and get upset. Some of the other colonies that secceeded did so more in support of their friends next door than in real desire to fight. Look at the differences in time between the first actions and when some of the colonies made formal declarations.

          But you still come down to essentially free people used to looking after themselves with the affluence to have time to think beyond getting tomorrows dinner gettin upset with laws that are not relevant or too expensive.

          A similar type problem is occuring in some societies today, and people are getting angry with their govts about excess or excessive laws. Today they talk a lot more, in those days they were more used to taking action.

        • #2673884

          Rights versus responsibility

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Many Good Points and One Core

          Maybe we should start this as a different thread but I lived through the 1960’s and saw a trend start then that JFK tried to stop. In the early and mid 1960’s too many people started bleating about this person’s rights and that person’s rights. Yes they had a valid complaint in many cases, especially where some people were being denied their rights.

          But it got to the point where your rights far outweighted your responsibilities. yet every right is balanced by a responsibility, and in the 1960’s they started forgetting that and the trend has speeded up since then.

          Your right to free speech comes with a responsibility to leave me alone when I say I am not interested.

          JFK tried to turn it around with his speech about ‘what YOU can do for your country’. The frightening thing is that if that speech had been made 40 years earlier they would have wondered why he was speeaking about the obvious.

          Nowdays the ‘right’ of the person is sacrosanct even in law courts. Thanks to litigation precedents it is my ‘right’ to expect you to be clairvoyant and to be able to take precautions against any possible contingency regardless of how stupid and idiotic I am. I no longer have a responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner or to take reasonable precautions.

          But don’t worry, when this generation of ‘bread and circuses’ losers reach the position to be the govt of many countries the world gets to start reasonably clean after the nuclear terrorist holocaust.

        • #2673870

          Clean Slate

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Rights versus responsibility

          Let’s hope that it doesn’t require such an extensive cleaning to change mindsets.

          You are absolutely correct – the coin of freedom has a flip side, and it is responsibility. Too many have forgotten this. Of all the wealth, this is the only coin that can have equitable distribution. Each of us begins with the same amount, and diminish it to the degree we surrender responsibility to others.

        • #2675349

          Post holocaust.

          by mrbill- ·

          In reply to Rights versus responsibility

          Unfortunately after a thermonuclear attack on that grand a scale to wipe out major govts will not leave much behind to cleanup. The cockroaches will enjoy your confidence in their abilities, thank you very much. Maybe in a few million years the new beings God decides to deposit on Earth will find a better solution.

        • #2676347

          People will survive

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Post holocaust.

          Not even the worst holocaust predictions predict the total destruction of all the people without the total destruction of all life on earth. We just dont have enough bombs to get everyone. An even distribution of all the devices around the globe may cause a bad enough nuclear winter to ensure the destruction of all life, but that is unlikely. Most major targets will have multiple bombs aimed at them and thus many areas will be devestated and others largely untouched.

          People will survive and rebuild, but to what extent is another issue. All I can say is


      • #2674592

        Good points

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Correct Power = responsibility

        Perhaps you would like to start a seperate discussion on individual responsibility in government.

        For the record, I thought Heinlein had the right idea in “Starship Trooper” when he put a requirement to serve one’s nation as a prerequisite to voting or holding office.

        As for individual sovereignty, this is not something any government can give. How can a government give what it cannot posess? And therein lies the difference.

    • #2673849

      One question…

      by monkeybutter ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      How can an administration appraise public opinion of its actions if all citizens abstain from being vocal about actions taken or decisions made which they don’t agree with?

      It seems an awful lot of faith and confidence to place in a group of people who, regardless of their track record, when all is said and done, are still just people.

      • #2673840

        They Cannot

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to One question…

        It isn’t a question of following public opinion – if it were then we could eliminate the office in favor of a public vote on every decision.

        The job is awarded based on public opinion of the candidate’s qualifications and character. Within the parameters of the Constitution the administration then executes, and a review of overall performance determines whether that administration continues after 4 years or is replaced. The selection is partly based on overall party core values and partly on the public perception of the candidates’ character.

        • #2673835

          That’s not strictly true, though

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to They Cannot

          The whole purpose of having an administration is so that it can administrate. Everyday people have everyday lives, work and commitments that would prevent them from forming an effective electorate over every single issue that faces a country. This is why an administration exists; to serve as a representative governing body qualified to act in the best interests of the public. It’s not just a practice compounded by rote, but a logistical necessity.

          That you can claim responsibility for the actions of a government the policy of which you have no input into beggars logic. That the submissive and docile passive-conformist attitude dissuades people from being critical of the government’s actions prevents it from being able to refine, adapt or learn from those it exists to serve.

          That the American administration seems to consist almost unanimously of those from wealthy and privileged backgrounds is even more shocking in this light. There’s no room for progression or development, and no means whereby ordinary people get any means of proposing change, or expressing public support thereof.

          The final condemning element of this triage is that it comes from a nation that prides itself on freedoms yet constrains itself in this way. What use is freedom of speech if you fail to utilise it in this most crucial way? The most fundamental notion anyoue should be free to speak is that Napoleon is not always right.

        • #2673829

          Therein lies the true genius

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to That’s not strictly true, though

          of the system. Only when an overwhelming dissent within society do the people provide sufficient impetus for change. Otherwise, government would be paralyzed by the shifting winds of public opinion, and the decision making process coopted by those most inciteful among us.

          The 4 year Presidency provides an institutional dampening effect, essential because many efforts on the national level require time to implement, and more time to fairly evaluate results.

          The Vietnam war is one example where a relatively small cadre of highly motivated anti-war elements were able to energize large numbers of those “fence-sitters” and mobilize large scale demonstrations against the war. The anti-war media acted as a force multiplier, using the fact that Vietnam was the first televised war to turn the tide further against the effort.

          My personal feelings are that this was a disaster, resulting is the loss of 50,000 American lives for nothing and the loss of some 2 million Asian lives as a result.

          Suffice it to say, American ambivalence is a good reinforcement to take voting seriously, because it is not easy to undue the effects of having the opposing view have 4 years to pull the country in a direction that you do not like. If nothing else, you reserve the right to complain if you vote…..

        • #2673826


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Therein lies the true genius

          It’s been said that – “The job is awarded based on public opinion of the candidate’s qualifications and character.

          Within the parameters of the Constitution the administration then executes, and a review of
          overall performance determines whether that administration continues after 4 years or is replaced. The selection is partly based on overall party core values and partly on the public perception of the candidates’ character.”

          Your decision making as a result of character review and qualifications is inaccurate and must be simply reduced to “qualifications” which I’m sure many overlook entirely.

          To imply that all US citizens (or even the majority for that matter ) understand political qualifications and can compare a list of acronyms to what is reaquired to successfully run a country is a little far fetched. I’m sure MANY people from the general public would seem qualified if dressed up an paraded on TV the way that political candidates are. They usually have law degrees (common), military experience (so do most Americans)and hve acted in a political position (governor of a state).

          Now alomst ANYONE can become a lawyer passing the bar is just passing a test. You can achieve a law degree while in jail and take the bar exam upon release from serving time as a kiddie porn photographer.

          I think it is clear that the majority of American men see the military as a rite of passage to being American, so military action just qualifies a candidate as an American.

          As for political experience, you’ve had one politician who was an actor asnd now the governor of California is an actor, so it shows anyone with money can hold political office of some sort. I’m sure if many of the TR members here had the cash they’d be running too, and I can expect quite successfully.

          Now what’s left? Your opinion of the true intent and credibility of the candidate.
          Now you are assuming that the media is NOT going to mislead you, this politician is telling the truth (that’s a reson for doubt there), and ultimately that the party will be able to carry out these administrative duties successfully within 4 years.

          If you ask me, the cards are stacked against you, even the most politically educated citizens may as well be picking horses here.

          You can see the morning line, past races, training and workout stats but once your money’s on the table, will she run from the gate and win against the others who didn’t look so good?
          Not usually.

          You’d be better off buying a lottery ticket.

          To top it off, all of this doubt, misleading information (that you must sift through for the ounce of truth), character ASSUMPTIONS, supposed qualifications etc. Is a reason for American citizens to feel reponsible for the actions of this individual while in office. If you were in a courtroom, you’d have grounds to plead temprorary delusion based on the grounds of misinformation.

          After all is said and done, YOU’RE the ones having to support his efforts whether or not you agree or disagree. Sounds like the Pres has a pretty good deal, you can do what you like, if it isn’t well recieved, you aren’t blamed for your actions as there are too many other ‘advisors’ to fall back on.

          Campaigns cost a lot of money, recieve a lot of private and corporate supprt, the man with the most toys wins. The presidents have generally (if not all)been quite wealthy BEFORE taking a term in office. BUSH has so much money, he’s going to need the majority of America pissed at him before his reelection campaign fails to see him back in office. All illusionists suck without props and camera angles to lead your sight from the real matters at hand to the pretty pinkscarve in the other hand.

        • #2673825


          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Therein lies the true genius

          For a start, that widespread dissent is, under the original model stated here, deliberately repressed. To claim it as a mechanic in the regulation of that model makes very little sense.

          I fail to believe that any system requiring widespread social discord offset by a public complacency campaign to provide a self-regulating effect on an unpopular government as the only means to ascertain the support of its people is anything other than a notoriously and patently absurd idea.

          But it’s not as if this idea is actually representative of America as a whole, based on the number of extremely visible noncomplicit elements of American society.

          Still, each to their own.

        • #2673786

          Food for Thought

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to That’s not strictly true, though

          I see know real argument with your first statement.

          You statement that I have no input into the policy of my government is flawed based on your lack of understanding. The platform of each major party reflects a compromise of the input from party members, membership being open to anyone who so chooses. A graph of the range of member positions on any issue or position is a Bell curve, and the overall party platform fits within the median range. It may be a little left or right of that central point, but not that far off. On issues or positions that are not considered important to most party members it may move further from the center, or choose not to take a party position.

          The point that most candidates have a degree of wealth is true. Why is this? You suggest it is an indication of wealth equalling power. An alternative possibility is that an ability to leads often is applied first in business, generating wealth, and then applied to a political career. That a large number of successful politicians did not start from a position of personal wealth makes the second analysis seem the more likely. I haven’t looked for or attempted to create an extensive study of the issue, but I suggest you merely consider the personal starting points of the last 15 US Presidents to see if your assumption of wealth and privledge is valid.

          I don’t believe it is (working backwards) with Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Hoover, Coolidge, Wilson, or T. Roosevelt. It is with Bush (current), and Kennedy. I can’t say with regard to F. Roosevelt, Wilson, Harding, and Taft. This does not seem to support your perception.

          You see no room for progression, no room for development. So you feel that the US perspective of the world is essentially unchanged from 1789 when George Washington first took office? I suspect a closer examination of history will correct this misconception.

          I will give you that those who would work to be a presidential candidate are less ordinary and more extrordinary individuals. This is expected in any political system, in any form of government.

          Your final point I suspect is linked to current events. Again I suggest you look at the historical record. If the American people overall support the what they feel is the overall position of President Bush on Iraq and against terrorists is consistent with their views, a public outcry makes no sense.

          Put your final statement in the context of sovereign nations rather than sovereign individuals. Do you still find such constraint a condemning element?

        • #2673774


          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Food for Thought

          Firstly, I’d like to point out that the faults I find with what you have elaborated upon at length have discrepancy with reality not (necessarily; there’s probably some shortfall, though) because of a lack of understanding of your political system (I like to keep myself informed), but because I do not believe your model appropriately abstracts the reality of the situation. I have seen far too many outspoken and contrary American citizens, and personally encountered enough of them through numerous means, forums and locales, to consider the sentiments you hold to be unanimous amongst the American people.

          As such, my faultfinding isn’t with America, but with your sentiments regarding it, and why they don’t seem to stand up to my own personal scrutiny.

          With regard to soverign nations (and I share the notion voiced elsewhere in this thread that “soverign individual” makes no contextual sense) I personally believe that it’s the responsibility of the socially-aware individual to question authority when that authority runs counter to the collective interest. To do otherwise I see as blinkered and somewhat ignorant. The voicing of public opinion is an integral part of allowing the public to come to informed conclusions about their place in the world of their administration’s making. If everyone kept their head down and muttered “ah well…mustn’t grumble” no-one would find any impetus to change a partially-broken system.

          The right to say “I do not agree” is one of the most integral aspects to any notion of “freedom” anyone may claim to proscribe to. When stifling that right becomes unpatriotic, it’s time to start thinking about the relative merits of patriotism in the first place.

        • #2673768

          Agree to Disagree

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to OK…

          You are welcome to find my sentiments disagreeable, offensive, stupid, or anything else. They are my sentiments.

          The notion that someone can be unpatriotic towards a country other than their own is as ridiculous to me as to you. As for other Americans disagreeing, I would contend that on any specific issue there is rarely a majority position. I don’t find this unpatriotic either.

          My primary objective is two fold.

          First, to suggest a move away from negative threads. An alternative position does not have to begin by slamming the other. It may be fun, entertaining, and easy, but it is the least effective form of persuassion. I don’t find it useful whether it is an American slamming a non American or reversed.

          Second, there is opportunity for non Americans to influence the politics of America by influencing Americans. Since America is the elephant surrounded by mice, this seems to be to the advantage of the mice. I suspect that there are a higher percentage of American voters and vote influencers on TR than on other forums, so it is a good place to do this.

          What you do is entirely up to you.

        • #2673761

          That sounds like a perfectly amicable arrangement

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Agree to Disagree

          I first stumbled across these forums and started using them because they weren’t against my work’s internet use policy, and I’ve sort of become addicted in a perverse and complicated way.

          There’s often a very mixed bag of ideas on offer, some of which I find insightful and enlightening, some that leave be clutching my own eyeballs and screaming into my monitor about crack-pipe burns and crazy fundies.

          There’s a certain “my god, you actually think like that!” element to some of what you find here, and in kind there are reactions to what I’d consider casual and (to my reckoning) widespread attitudes that correspond to how people wouldreact if I’d just told them to go forth and eat the flesh of the newborn.

          I do agree, it would be nice if we could approach culture clash without it breaking down into petty insults and childish one-upmanship, but I’d be lying if I thought that was unilaterally possible given the disparity in those cultures and the perspectives of those from where they come.

          Still, we can always hope.

        • #2673747

          I think that…

          by lesdabney67 ·

          In reply to They Cannot

          is a general overview of how the system is supposed to work but you are very naive if you believe it is that way.

    • #2673823

      Please define “individual sovereignty” ….

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      Could someone please define the term “individual sovereignty” as I cannot find it in any dictionary.

      e.g. sovereignty:
      1. supremacy.
      2. self-government.
      3. a self-governing state.

      1. supreme and unrestricted power, as of a state;
      2. an independent state.

      1. supreme power or authority.
      2. a state, territory, community etc that is independent or sovereign.

      To my simple mind, any of the above definitions would be in complete contradiction to the idea of each member of the state having sovereignty.

      I am trying to understand, but am finding it very difficult when your fundamental premise is based on a concept which does not appear to exist in the English language.

      • #2673792

        Point of Reference

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Please define “individual sovereignty” ….

        Having made the statement and provided explanation unsuccessfully once, to simply paraphrase myself is not a useful approach.

        The point is the role of the individual. Why don’t you explain how you feel you fit within your country, your rights and responsibility in the context of your government, and I will see if I can perhaps explain it from your point of reference.

        • #2673789

          Is that a closed invitation…

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Point of Reference

          …or can we all join in on that one?

        • #2673785

          Absolutely Open

          by oldefar ·

          In reply to Is that a closed invitation…

          My posts are made to generate open discussion and an honest exchange of ideas. I really feel the world is too small for any of us to ignore each other, and life too short to simple exchange insults.

          If I feel a statement needs to restricted, or I am not interested in public comment, I don’t post it in a public forum. 🙂

        • #2673764


          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Absolutely Open

          Let’s start from the beginning. I’m from the UK. I was born here, and I’ve lived here all my life. I should add at this point that I neither asked nor chose to be born here, and whilst I’m glad that I live in a Glorious Free Western Democracy(tm), I don’t really feel that I owe my country anything.

          Because my country, on a national scale, is an impersonal abstract. It’s treated with nowhere near the level of pseudo-state worship that the US subscribes to. I’m well aware that my nation isn’t the greatest nation in the world, because I am comfortable with the fact that there is no such thing as the greatest nation in the world in any objective sense.

          My country is just a hunk of land, surrounded by water, filled with people. It’s very pretty in certain places, and fugly as all sweet merry hell in others. It doesn’t stand for truth, honour, justice, freedom or indeed anything. It just is. It wasn’t forged in the fires of…ugh…I dunno…something Mel Gibson could make a crappy and historically inaccurate movie about. It wasn’t really forged. It just sort of coagulated over thousands of years. It has more history than it knows what to do with, to the point where the plight of those who died in the second world war has as much significance to me as that of those who died in the Sudan, or the English Civil War, or the Norman conquest.

          It’s not that I don’t have any form of emotional attachment to my country, merely that Great Britain, land of soverignty, nobility, stiff-upper-lippedness, milk-and-two-sugars, sorting out Johnny Foreigner and doing-my-bit-for-king/queen(delete-as-appropriate)-and-country means very little to me. I don’t have any personal experience with that Britain, because it doesn’t really exist any more in the minds of anyone below a pentionable age.

          It’s not that I’m unpatriotic. I’m not patriotic in the sense that most Americans would ascribe the term, but I’m proud of the things that my country has done that personally mean something to me. I’m a patriot in the same way Sid Vicious was a patriot.

          What do I love about my country? Red Dwarf. Monty Python’s Flying Circus. The Goons. Terry Pratchett. ‘Allo ‘Allo. Verdant Welsh valleys. The smell of Liverpool rain. The ethnic diversity. The language. A host of quality broadsheet newspapers. Thick, fatty sausages that squeal when you cook them. One of the finest education systems in the world. The Levellers. Revivalist Ska. Those old 50p coins with a circle of hands on them. Willy Russell. Pete Posselthwaite. John Lennon. Ben Elton.

          These are the things that I’m proud of, amongst a whole host of others that I couldn’t even begin to consider compiling into an exhaustive list.

          The administrative and governmental aspect of my country is just a basic necessity we’re vaguely forced to endure. The notion of not criticising someone in government in the UK is the most phenomenally alien concept you could try and graft on. We have an entire culture of criticising people in government. The UK (and myself, quite particularly) has a rampant and insatiable appetite for social and political satire.

          And why shouldn’t I criticise those in power? They make a hell of a lot of mistakes. Anyone would. In order for them to have impetus to make fewer mistakes, they need the threat of public criticism, so that come election time they’ll have performed as cleanly as humanly possible in order to be elected yet again. When the slightest high-end scandal can decimate a political carreer, you learn to sing for your supper.

          In my experience and observations of both US and UK politicians, I have found that (with a few exceptions on both sides) those in the UK tend to be a lot more capable of defending their points and policies against open criticism, and more well-spoken in off-the-cuff, ad-hoc interviews. They have to be. They have to think on their feet and ten steps ahead to even begin to get into the game. Conflict, in this case, breeds excellence in their fieild.

          Where do I fit into this? Well, I don’t. Not really. I vote for my local MP (one of hundreds) at least once every five years, and the party with the most seats in parliament wins. It’s not entirely different from yours, once you get past the archaic nomenclature. However, I’ve come to terms with the idea that all of the parties I could elect from are pretty poor with regards to how I, or indeed anyone, would like them to run the country, because we’ve all got unrealistic expectations of what’s possible. Taxes will rise, class sizes will get bigger and hospital waiting lists won’t be shrinking for a long time to come. All parties, on a fundamental level, are the same. Even if they’re not, their inception into power will end up moulding them into the shape of their predecessors. I’ll criticise them all I want, because they’re all rubbish, but I get to select the least rubbish in my own estimations.

          As for my responsibilities to my country, well, I pay my taxes. For that I get free healthcare, a fire service that’s underpaid but unsurpassed by any other in the world, a police force that I hope to have the most minimal contact with as possible, the finest road network in Europe, a unilaterally well-equipt, well-trained and extremely versatile selection of armed forces for your president to play soldiers with and a welfare state I can fall back upon should I ever find myself out of work and out of luck. When I’m living alone, I pay for my TV license, which funds arguably one of the most unbiased entertainment and current affairs institutions in the world. Everything else I could want was quite foolishly privatised by Thatcher in the ’80s, so I pay for that out of my own pocket in a time-honoured goods/services for finance transaction.

          See, I enjoy all of the “freedoms” you enjoy (except with fewer guns, which is something I’m eternally thankful for), and I know it’s nothing special, because most of the first world has had them all for the better part of three hundred years. I also know that the only thing that can threaten these freedoms is the government charged with protecting them, and the best way to prevent that government from becoming complacent in its duty to those who pay for it is to make sure that they know they are being watched, and to tell them where they’re going wrong at every available opportunity.

          How did it go again? Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom?

          I think a lot of people lost sight of who that vigilance is supposed to be directed towards.

        • #2673760

          Sure lets do

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Right…

          Ok, basically you described a socialist state that you live in. The fact that you don’t give a damn about the people that died to preserve or increase your freedoms only shows your character in an ugly light. Thats the difference between Americans and the rest of the world. We actually (the majority of us anyway) are grateful and acknowledge those people who sacrificed their lives for the very freedoms we enjoy. That welfare state you so luxioursly speak of exists because someone is paying for it. Thats how your system works, very nice. The obvious flaw of your system and the ingratitude you show is a stark contrast to how and why Americans still feel the way they do after 200 years of a Republic. This is a self made country, oldest democracy, where the rights of an individual are cherished and here was born the self-made man/woman, creator of his/her own wealth (Yeah I know people actually still work for their own money, wow what an amazing concept huh?). Please, go back to your small island and hope that you don’t drown in your tea. Tata!

        • #2673709

          Oh dear…

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Sure lets do

          Have you actually properly read any of what I just said?

          Where exactly did you pull “socialist state” from? Do any of you even know what the words “socialist” and “communist” mean? You use them with the same vitriol normally reserved for rapists and paedophiles, yet there seems to be a basic and fundamental lack of understanding of what these social terms actually consist of.

          For christ’s sake, you won! Communism is no longer a threat to America, and in that light there aren’t any other real social models for your society to contend with. Stop whining about it.

          None of what you speak of about America is even remotely unique to it, and over the span of human history, such ideas have been flaunted, bemoaned, glorified, sometimes deified, and been meticulously well-documented as having happened elsewhere before.

          As for people who gave their lives in previous wars for my freedoms, they didn’t do that for me or my generation. They did that for them. Good for them, I’m glad they did it, but I don’t feel in any way indebted to them. They did what they had to do in the face of adversity, and if I should ever be called upon to do the same, I wouldn’t expect anything more or less.

          Did you have any constructive purpose behind this post aside from to perform a poorn and ill-educated critique on what you don’t understand?

        • #2675253

          Enlighten me on Communism/Socialism

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Sure lets do

          Would love to hear your definitions and then we will compare your notes with mine and we will see if my statement was true.

        • #2675242

          That would take a lot of time to do properly

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to Sure lets do

          Communism is by and large a fanciful irrelevence I threw in by way of observation concerning some of the extreme and nonsensical responses to notions of left-wing social models. Since it’s not totally relevent to the discussion at hand, I hope you don’t mind me putting that one on the back-burner for now. I could talk on it at length, (I like talking about things at length), and will do later on if you want, but it’s nearly two in the morning where I am, and I’d like to get some sleep tonight.

          So I’ll stick with socialism, and try to demonstrate how the UK is by no stretch of the imagination a socialist nation.

          Socialism as defined by socialists themselves is a social model constructed by the working classes for the working classes. Means of production and service provision are owned either directly by the state or by cooperative communal bodies catering for specific subsections of the population that in turn provide for their upkeep. Production and matters of public concern are determined by a centrally-orchestrated body answerable to the people with the ultimate intent of improving the general lot of the common man. It’s based on the basic ideaology of freeing man from the exploitation of his fellows.

          You can’t apply this to the UK. We have public emergency services, healthcare and schooling. That’s it. Everything else previously governmentally owned has been privatised (badly, and to the detriment of quality of some of those services), and even when they weren’t privatised, they were still supplied at a transactional cost to those who used them.

          The UK doesn’t even have remotely socialist origins. Most socialism comes about by means of a revolution whereby “the people” oust the existing administration in favour of previously stated socialist principles. That’s never happened in the UK, ever. We were a monarchy (so unsocialist it’s just not funny), then we had a civil war, 1637-1641. That brought about, in the long run, the two houses of Parliament. The House of Lords, consisting of Peers of the Realm and nobility (no socialist elements there), and the House of Commons, consisting of wealthy land-owners and anyone else rich enough to convince people to let them on the benches.

          At present the House of Lords still has heavy influence on any lawmaking decisions. The House of Commons is no longer as much of an Old Boys Network as it used to be, although it still has the sentiment running through it. Every parliamentary seat in the country (divided up by areas in the UK) elect their local MP (Member of Parliament), who represents their constituency in the House of Commons. It’s not entirely unakin to the US Senate, however there are enough differences to make the comparison tentative at best.

          Most of the people in the ministerial cabinet are (in spite of being on a senior civil servant’s payscale) extremely wealthy individuals through their own private business interests, very few, if any, could claim to have working class roots, primarily because the British social class system doesn’t exist any more in any recognisable form.

          The Labour government *did* (several decades ago) espouse the idea of standing for the common man, although it still worked in the same parliamentary system as every other party. It tried to stand for the common man in its first incarnation some thirty years ago, but really ballsed it up. 22 years later, when we were all sick of the tories, it had reinvented itself as “New Labour”, which is arguably marginally more right-wing than the then-in-power Conservative party, yet it used its prior reputation as the Working Man’s party to gain the favour of those who remembered it from its glory days, coupled with a radical policy shift to ensnare Middle England and the wealthier sectors of society.

          Now, if you’d like to provide your own definition of socialism that conforms concurrently to how Britain currently works, I’m happy to pay attention.

        • #2675216


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Sure lets do

          Hey dude this ones ripe. It’s like a bad dose it’s syphillitic sores are over this post now!

          Quick get the penicillin, or better still get a istory book for this guy, a normal history book.

          Damn now look what’s happened to oldefar’s post!

        • #2673758

          OK, so here goes …

          by jardinier ·

          In reply to Point of Reference

          We have a constitution which, being much more recently devised that that of the USA, is quite likely more relevant to the current world situation.

          We have compulsory voting at all levels of government: Federal, State and Local. However the only mandatory requirement is to register to vote at the appropriate times and those who don’t wish to participate merely have to cast an informal vote. However most people choose to cast a formal vote and take the matter seriously as far as I can determine.

          In most instances (some states do not use this facility) we have preferential voting which means that you can cast a protest vote against the incumbent government by giving your first preference to an independent or member of a minor party, but under the two-party preferred system your second preference counts as much as your first preference.

          The Federal Government is elected for three years, and can be re-elected any number of times if the majority of the electorate is happy with its performance. State governments are elected for fixed four-year terms, but again without limit. The NSW State Labor Government was the first in the history of the nation to be elected for a third term, earlier this year.

          I suspect the Australian system is about as good as it gets, but feel no need to advertise my preference.

          And my role, responsibility and rights? I am free to do or say whatever I like, as long as my actions do not infringe upon those same rights of others. I have no mandatory obligations to my country and Government, other than to avoid breaking laws.

          I can join the military voluntarily, or as a reservist, or in time of war may be called up to serve by ballot. While I emphatically do not believe war should be glorified as some supreme duty, Australians have never hesitated to participate when the need arose.

          We have an extensive welfare sytem, but are by no means a socialist state nor is there any likelihood of this occurring. Basic education and health care are available to everyone, and social benefits are avilable to those who are incapacitated or who are unable to find work during certain economic conditions.

          To sum up, I am an Australian, I am happy and blessed to be an Australian, I will contribute to whatever is necessary to maintain the freedom which I enjoy, but I do not in any way feel the need to compare Australia favourably or unfavourably with any other country.

          Australia began as a convict colony and has grown to become a respected but not boastful nation. No-one made us achieve this: whatever we have become, has occurred though individual initiative and enterprise.

        • #2673736

          Individual sovereignty

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Point of Reference

          Ok Individual usually means single or sole, in some cases in can mean own or personal, and that is how I read it as being used here.

          Sovereignty is generally used to describe the position of someone with absolute or final power.
          Thus the soveriegn king, has absolute power.

          I read individual sovereignty as meaning
          something like final personal absolute power.

          Throughout history the actual power of a person in authority has actually come from the individuals that they have power over and thus all power is derived from the individual. In the cases of kings someone was just better, smarter or meaner than all the rest and convinced them to give him their power, he then past that on to his descendants. In some cases the people gathered together and decided who would be the new king. No people now power no king or kingdom.

          Historically a king was king for life, regardless of how they got it (some minor exceptions) but the main idea today is to make the person king for a set period of 3 or 4 years.

      • #2675385

        my personal sovereignty

        by john_wills ·

        In reply to Please define “individual sovereignty” ….

        Each man is the captain of his soul
        And each man his own crew
        But the pilot knows the unknown seas
        And he will see us through.

        thus John Oxenham – who was not U.S.American

        I wrote “personal” rather than “individual” sovereignty: “individual” is a Latin word meaning much the same as the Greek word “atom”. If I have a large set of persons (or things), I can divide the set and still have persons; the set is dividual. If I divide a person I no longer have a person; the person is individual. Now, is the sovereignty of a person dividual? are there components of that sovereignty which are themselves in some sense sovereign?

    • #2673715


      by fluxit ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      You appear to be talking more about individualism versus the State and calling it ‘Individual Sovereignty’.

      Our Forefathers were very interested in this. The US Constitution establishes a form of government that strenghtens individual rights in terms of governing a society. The Bill of Rights actually protects your neighbors rights and not yours. In modern terms the Bill of Rights may read:

      Your neighbor has a right to personal property
      Your neighbor has the right to assemble
      Your neighbor has the right to practice his religion
      Your neighbor has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness
      Your neighbor has the right to bear arms
      and so forth…

      Individualism is limited when it infringes upon another. However, this is not to be construed in support of immoral acts against your own body. There is no distinguishable difference between public and private life within a person. Our forefathers even commented on this. Values and beliefs carry through. How many times have neighbors said after some horrific event – ‘well he was a quiet nice guy.’

      IRT Judgement day found in Revelation 20 is not for Governments it is for people from every nation. Nations being Jewish, Gentiles, etc… You will be held accountable for your deeds. Deeds being the cycle of works. Good works are the result of salvation that comes only through faith in Christ.

      Your military oath places leadership squarely upon YOU. You are responsible to and accountable to the principles set forth in the US Constitution. Your integrity will prevent you from blindly following your superiors and your loyalty will strengthen them. As General Krulak once put it, “Tattoo on your soul”

      The difference between the United States and the rest of the World is significant. I believe the ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ summs up this difference. Our government is founded upon principles that are undeniably found in the Judeo/Christian Bible. God says himself that leaders and nations of people who do his word will prosper.

      The United States of America is the longest standing Government in the history of the world. Our nation is only great because of our alliance with God. For it is ‘In God We Trust’.

      Those who came from the Ishmael heritage are repeatedly bumbling along being a nuissance to society and have been defeated again and again. Those nations that turned on Israel have faultered and lost prominence. The United States is nearly the only nation that allies with Israel and for good reason. I fear the day should this nation turns on Israel.

      • #2673706

        Not quite.

        by monkeybutter ·

        In reply to INDIVIDUALISM

        You can believe what you like about God, the Bible and your own constitution, but where did you get the idea that the US is the longest standing government in the history of the world?

        I personally own books that predate the existence of the US. Your country is really, really young. Not that this is a bad thing, indeed, it demonstrates the tenacity of a nation that can achieve what the US has achieved in just a couple of centuries, but the claim that the US is the longest-standing government in the history of the world is quite patently false.

        • #2675317

          HOLLOW COMMENTS – Mr Babble

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Not quite.

          A lot of talk and no evidence. Shall I call you Mr Babble.

        • #2675289

          I shouldn’t even dignify this with a response…

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to HOLLOW COMMENTS – Mr Babble

          Let’s have a look at this.

          American declaration of Independence – 1776
          Founding of British Parliament – 1637
          First King of England (monarchy’s still going) – 9th century
          Roman Empire – 27BC to 312AD = 339 years
          French Monarchy – 485 to 1789 = 1304 years
          Russian Czars – 1465 to 1917 = 448 years

          These are basic historical facts verifiable from numerous sources.

          And incidentally, in any debate, the burden of proof rests on those making the proposition, in this case you saying America was the longest-running government in world history.

          You may want to check your facts before writing cheques your history can’t cash.

        • #2675281

          That’s good

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I shouldn’t even dignify this with a response…

          Mr.MIAMI claiming someone babbles! Pot callnig the kettle black or what?

          I have yet to read a single post by Miami that makes any logical sense at all. I usually give up reading halfway through and just post some crap in retort, it’s a lot easier than trying to understand him.

          Have fun with it,

        • #2675212


          by fluxit ·

          In reply to I shouldn’t even dignify this with a response…


          Founding of British Parliament – 1637
          First King of England (monarchy’s still going) – 9th century
          Roman Empire – 27BC to 312AD = 339 years
          French Monarchy – 485 to 1789 = 1304 years
          Russian Czars – 1465 to 1917 = 448 years

          You got to be kidding me!

          Each of these were PERIODS in time DURING which the government CHANGED with each ruler. There wasn’t a single identifiable and CONSISTENT government over those periods. There certainly was a culture and society with some laws but the government was a singular human that lasted a brief period until he either died or was overthrown and next guy came along and reordered the law around himself.

          Heck King John (another king from another period) was forced into the Magna Carta to finance his war. He was not interested in giving people rights but none the less that changed Government under him.

          Moreover the Founding of British Parliament was not the same form of Government over that entire period to today. There was a continuous shifting of the balance of power away from the Queen. Thus changing the form of Government. Additionally, was it not the United States that sent the Declaration of Independence to the a King of England in 1776 and not the Parliament? In 1801 the British underwent a series of changes that led to the establishment of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland under the rule of a central government headed by a common monarch and administered by a single parliament. That sounds like a change to me. By today they have gone through more changes and the Queen is around for more or less posterity.

          Whereas the Unites States Government, structure and operation has remained stable. The two parties are still here, the Constitutional government is still operating some 228 years later.

        • #2675204

          Whereas the US…

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to SNIFF SNIFF… I SMELL BS

          You said:”Whereas the Unites States Government, structure and operation has remained stable. The two parties are still here, the Constitutional government is still operating some 228 years later.”

          Judging by the recent state of affairs, perhaps chane should be welcomed. Is it time for you to rise and become the new world leader?

          President Miami. It has a ring to it…DUNG!

        • #2675261

          oldest democracy

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Not quite.

          No, not the longest standing nation, but the oldest democracy…err Republic :).

        • #2675238

          Again, not quite

          by monkeybutter ·

          In reply to oldest democracy

          The Republic of Rome lasted for over four centuries.

          There were a couple of Grekian nation states that probably give the US a run for its money in that regard, also.

        • #2675208

          ONCE AGAIN

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Again, not quite

          This republic was run by the Aristocrats and magistrates that were so-called ‘elected’. These ‘elected’ people ruled with king like powers and corruption in the system lead to the wealthy buying votes. Citizens had only veto power on resolutions when voted on and there was no free discussion in the Senate.

          While the system of Government was in operation from 509?27 BC. It often changed form slowly who had nearly absolute power. The Romans adapted to changing circumstances with a great deal of political struggle.

          It was not a true Republic or Democracy but did inspire the US forefathers.

        • #2676261

          oldest democracy/republic

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Again, not quite

          Perhaps the U.S. is the oldest SURVIVING republic. Apparently older republics have been something else inbetween. Palestinian and Armenian Christians both claim their nations as “the first Christian nation”. The Palestinians seem to be right, because Palestine was majority-Xn from about 200 AD, whereas Armenia became Xn at its king’s command in 301 AD. But over 80% of the Palestinians are now non-Xn, so although Palestine is the FIRST Xn nation Armenia is the OLDEST Xn nation. Similarly, the U.S. is – so far as I know – the OLDEST republic, but not the first.

      • #2675391


        by john_wills ·

        In reply to INDIVIDUALISM

        The Israel of the Bible is distinct from the modern state calling itself Israel. In my book Albatross 0-595-19418-4 I attempt a list of the Biblical and some non-Biblical meanings of the word “Israel”. The true ecclesiastical and spiritual Israel for Mr Miami is whichever Christian church Mr Miami belongs to. The national descendants of the Biblical Israelites are, of course, the Palestinians, so perhaps Mr Miami ought to be saying that the U.S. will bring bad luck on itself by supporting the Israelis.

      • #2675389

        moral foundations

        by john_wills ·

        In reply to INDIVIDUALISM

        Ayn Rand agrees with Mr Miami by writing, in “Virtue of Selfishness”, that the U.S. is the first country explicitly founded on a moral basis. Alas, her morality and Mr Miami’s are quite different – for one thing, she thought that Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross, had it been real, would have been positively evil, because… well, look it up. Is it possible that Ayn Rand and Mr Miami are finding different theories of morality, each his own, in the same historical event?

        • #2675299

          Virtue of Selfishness

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to moral foundations

          She appears to appeal to a morally nuetral universe in her discussion. She seems to be an Athiest and her value system is not principle based. It is humanistic. In my estimation she wrote a fictional story.

          I find it amazing that people are so unwilling to actually study and learn. Yet they are so free to espouse all kinds of fantasy and whimiscal ideas.

          I have studied in tremendous detail many aspects of our world. I have observed many of the arguments posted on this website not being completely matured. Heck I am even surprised by the lack of technical understanding on this technical site. One individual even challenged me on a technical issue that was immediately verifiable on the machine he was using to access this site. Yet he was hell bent on arguing a his useless point.

          Many of you become inflamed over the notion of Christianity. The very idea of putting faith into some fairy tale you say. Yet I find that these people have never truly studied and are unable to even carry a intellectual conversation without bursting into some kind of emotional posting.

        • #2675113

          my point…

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Virtue of Selfishness

          was that two intelligent people can admire the supposed roots of the U.S. for entirely different and even contradictory reasons. We all have a tendency to see in things what we would like to see, whether to admire or to bewail it; in the case of the U.S., both Ayn Rand and Mr Miami find something to admire, but surely they cannot both have found something really there?

        • #2676451

          YOUR POINT IS?

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to my point…

          There is no truth?

        • #2676265

          my suggestin is

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to YOUR POINT IS?

          that Mr Miami and Ayn Rand may both have believed something and then “found” it in the origins of the U.S. There is a truth about the origin of the U.S., but Mr Miami and Ayn Rand are unlikely to find it because they think they already know it.

      • #2675373

        Differing Interpretations

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to INDIVIDUALISM

        Sorry, but I stand by my perspective. I believe the source is the Declaration of Independence, which precedes the Constitution and leaves the field wide open for whatever type government a group may choose while emphasising that it the individuals who as a group so choose. As for the Bill of Rights protecting my neighbors rights rather than mine – effect is the same since to my neighbor it protects my rights rather than his.

        I have to oppose your emphasis on Christian beliefs. Unlike you, I don’t believe that America is founded on Christianity and that the founders took special care not to impose a specific belief.

        I also disagree on the power of any government to intrude upon the private actions of individuals. Carried to the extreme, such intrusion would justify government dictates of what I wear or don’t wear, eat or don’t eat, drink or don’t drink, do or don’t do, and think or don’t think. The threat to society from those who engage in self destructive behavior is far less than the threat of such government intrusion on individual freedom.

        On the positive side, the actions associated with your beliefs are not inherently contradictary to the beliefs of others. This allows a society with diverse people, cultures, and beliefs to still function in reasonable harmony. If it makes you feel better, assume your God will sort it all out later.

        • #2675310

          CHECKOUT THE…

          by fluxit ·

          In reply to Differing Interpretations

          Trinity Church verses the United States Government supreme court ruling. The Justice wrote, “… These are a religious people… this is a Christian Nation.” They then gave a 400 year litany of evidence.

          Did the Pilgrims not sign the Mayflower compact to escape religious persecution? Look it up and read it. What was thier first act when landing upon Plymouth Rock? They prayed.

          The US Bill of Rights is founded in the Ten Commandments. Hundreds if not thousands of quotes from our forefathers directly indicated this. Read ‘Democracy in America’ where De Tocqueville 1832 discusses Christianity and Islam. He concluded that Democracy could only thrive with Christianity. The very foundations of Democracy are found throughout the Judeo/Christian Bible.

          ‘If it makes you feel better, assume your God will sort it all out later.’ Funny thing that you made that comment. I just made the same Sunday morning to a Pastor because I know he will.

          I suppose you think that today Government is not doing anything to suppress free religion. Did you know that many cities and counties make a choice between a church and tax revenue. They are not making laws but zoning commissions are used to exclude churches from areas. That used to never be the case. So those rights that are so dear to you are being abused by faithless people who worship the dollar.

          I think you truly need to rethink your position. I would begin this with some earnst study.

    • #2675348

      Quite enlighting Oldefar

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      I think I now understand a bit better though not fully where you are coming from.

      I really don’t want to start something here but didn’t Oliver North say exactly thye same thing? Look what his ideals got him and that is only one example of what can go wrong in your system of Government. Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to critise only to point out how things can go wrong quickly and I don’t have any quick fix as there is wet to be developed the “Perfect” form of Government.

      However what I did notice missing was a link to the “Thank The Troops Site” aparently there are not a lot of Americians willing to place anything on this site or they don’t know about it so here it is

      & remember to remove any blank spaces that may be inserted when this is uploaded.


      • #2675209


        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Quite enlighting Oldefar


        I don’t know if Oliver North said the same thing or something similar. Something to follow up on when I get bored. I am sure most of my feelings and ideas have been stated before by others.

        Thanks also for the link. I am not much of a joiner myself, and prefer to act independent of organized approaches. Still, I am sure many of the troops find some measure of comfort from such activities.

        Hope all remains well with you.


        • #2675112

          Ken despite what our Governments do

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Thanks

          The troops always should get the support from us the civilians that they desirve.

          I’m old enough to remember what happened to the guys when they got back from Nam, and thought that it was terrible as they where made the scape goats for the Governments decissions.

          But I guess that it is easier to blame a bunch of troops who where only doing as ordered rather than accept that you carry some of the blame by allowing the Government that is/was in power to have got away with their actions for so long.

          Anyway Cheers for now


    • #2675239

      Top work, Ken

      by hereinoz ·

      In reply to Individual Sovereignty ? I am an American

      From an Australian-

      A wonderful post, Ken. Well written, lucid, and comprehensive. I think the lack of understanding between countries and cultures is one of the saddest things on this planet.

      Ken, you have taken the time to, firstly, attempt to understand how others think and feel, and secondly, to understand how you, yourself, think and feel, and you hae explained it well. I have personally received communications from you in this regard.

      If everyone took as much time and trouble as you have to do this, Ken, then perhaps we wouldn’t be seeing the violence and intolerance that we currently see about the place.

      I don’t 100% agree with everything in the American philosophy which you outlined, but that is my priviledge. The point is, you have raised my understanding of how you blokes think and feel. We need to do more of this sort of thing.

      Congratulations, Ken.



      • #2675233

        Great one!

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Top work, Ken

        Sorry, I didn’t finish reading your post. I’m not here to disagree with anything anyhow.

        There is a discussion titled “If you’re a geek, tell us!”
        I was reading your post and then saw – “I have personally received communications from you in this regard.”

        Sorry to pick on you but this could relly be a winner, SPOCK. I assume you were saying “got your email” or “you called last night”.

        What’s funny is that everyone is so focused on eloquence and FORMULATING a sentence that it comes out as “I have personally received communications from you in this regard.”

        Again, I don’t mean to hammer YOU it would have been just as funny no matter who wrote it.



        I appreciate your understanding and the time taken to review this material.

        • #2675206

          It’s life, Oz, but not as we know it

          by hereinoz ·

          In reply to Great one!

          Bit picky Oz, but I take your point. Sometimes I get a little carried away with the eloquence stuff.

          I do tend to speak a little like that anyway. But just to keep the record straight:

          I have received an e-mail from Ken in this regard!!

          Cheers Oz


        • #2675203

          Oh no

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to It’s life, Oz, but not as we know it

          PLease don’t take it like that, it’s was just after the whole Geek Post thing, no offense intended to yourself. In fact I admire your eloquence and articukation sometimes. (what, it’s MY turn now?) I think it’s cool, no prob okay?

          Just having a giggle, I am someone who really gets off on a play on words, double meanings, crosswords etc. I write copy and have always liked words and speech structures. Sometimes I see a different side to a comment than the usual reader and find it amusing. NOthing wrong with it just a funny take on your comment.

        • #2675187

          Is Ok, Oz

          by hereinoz ·

          In reply to Oh no

          I didn’t take offence actually. There we go with that delightful cultural difference again. You thought I was upset when I actually wasn’t. I agree that what I said did sound a bit pompous or something like that.

          I took the p*** out of (I think) Jim – not Jim Kirk of the starship Boobyprize, but Jim the guy who was posting vociferously with you in another thread – when he said Australia was a Penile colony, so if you can’t take the p*** out of me when I go all official and pompous, or whatever, something is terribly wrong.

          Now if I had actually heard from Ken via a Vulcan Mind Meld, that would be something special!!

          Hope all is well with you, and truly, I didn’t take offence, or a fence, or anything like that

          Catch you later Oz,


      • #2675210

        We do what we can

        by oldefar ·

        In reply to Top work, Ken


        Thanks for the response.

        I am looking forward to greater sharing on all issues by TR members world wide. What an incredible resource for all of us!


Viewing 13 reply threads