|
On March 24 2010 05:44 Durak wrote:summary of Caller's post Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:41 Caller wrote:Make sweeping generalizations of people that oppose the bill and burn the straw men later.
at least i pay my own taxes
also, see what i mean?
|
the new system is unconstitutional.
the politicians who voted yes wont make it past november.
im ready to march on washington. s'ko.
|
On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day  ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time.
agreed its an opinion, cant be proven any way about it
much a kin to the decline of the roman empire. marvelous opinions all around that too
|
On March 24 2010 05:44 Neverborn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time. Nicely done, Kwark
Oh shame shame, britain wasnt a superpower during the 18th century? oh lordie... but who cares its my opinion and not central to my argument
shit the term superpower wasnt even used until the 1900s
|
Lol people come on. Britain losing 13 colonies that were costing them money to hang onto proves nothing. It was similar to America pulling out of Vietnam (I'm sure you know something about that).
Britain remained a global power until WW1.
America was in fact a thoroughly weak global power until the late 1800's (around the dawn of the rise of big business and increased productivity). It was regarded with scorn by most European powers during this time, most of whom treated the Monroe Doctrine as big words rather than a threat.
In other news, what does everyone think about Healthcare reform in the US...
|
United States43459 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:42 TanGeng wrote:
US should have a benign view towards the UK. In the period of colonization, the UK basically dumped money and sent people over to the colonies. Then there was a period of benign neglect where the colonies grew wealthier and wealthier. After independence, the US and the UK resumed mutually beneficial trade on good terms with only one flare up. It was just that period in the middle from 1760 to 1783 and 1812-1815 when the UK and the US were pissed off at each other.
It makes me wonder why the UK ever bothered with the whole taxes and war because nothing good came of it.
I wonder this too. Although the colonists were among the wealthiest people in the world at the time and the taxes they were paying were relatively low. However there were dozens of attempts by the men who would become revolutionaries to explain the practical problem with expanding British unitary Government across the Atlantic. Unfortunately their attempts at fairly minor reforms fell upon the deaf ears of stupid men in high places, too caught up in a paradigm of Parliamentary sovereignty that resulted from the Glorious Revolution to see the nature of Government had shifted with the evolution of Empire.
The revolutionaries did not demand what would eventually become the constitution of the United States, they politely requested regional autonomy for practical reasons, namely because the Atlantic got in the way of good governance. The reaction of a few stupid men in England was confrontational and the outcome was a pointless war which was opposed by the vast majority of men both in England and the colonies. Almost everyone in the colonies viewed themselves as loyal subjects of the King and the war was very unpopular at first. Although public opinion swayed as the campaign continued there was still a huge exodus north from people who refused to live under the rule of "traitors". What makes the entire affair so depressing is that shortly afterwards, and perhaps as a result of the war, the paradigm shifted and the requests for regional autonomy made first by the Americans were granted to Canada and Australia.
After the war English investment and trade partnership with the United States continued as before. The United States fought alongside Britain in all her key wars and engaged in mutually beneficial trade for the entire history. The revolution changed very little in practical terms.
The 13 colonies were not comparable to the Spanish idea of empire in which resources were drained for the benefit of the fatherland but were rather an investment in people, capital and infrastructure. England was not draining the colonies in taxes, she was investing in them to the benefit of both. The loss of the colonies represented no real loss of revenue as the benefits of empire continued long after the independence.
For reference, the ideal English colony was a nation which governed itself, traded heavily with England, banked in London, handled its own defence and when the interests of both were threatened would join England in arms. Actually ruling it directly was avoided whenever possible from 1810 to the 1900s when the scramble for Africa changed things. In those respects America was the perfect colony, a place to trade with, a place to invest, a place to settle, none of this changed with independence. America is a triumph of English imperialism.
|
i think we are getting off topic... this is a thread about healthcare reform, not which country is better england or US
|
United States43459 Posts
On March 24 2010 05:57 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:44 Neverborn wrote:On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 03:39 Xenixx wrote:
No one on American soil should ever have to submit to someone else's will simply; Sadist. It is very simply not the governments job to tell you how to live your life, in any case. You don't know better than me, I don't know better than you.
The poll drives me nuts, most of TL is for the policy? ... nuts I tell 'ya. You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time. Nicely done, Kwark Oh shame shame, britain wasnt a superpower during the 18th century? oh lordie... but who cares its my opinion and not central to my argument
No, it wasn't a superpower during the 18th century. France and Spain were both more powerful nations and England had recurring issues in both Ireland and Scotland. England was a European great power but you have to remember that England was conquered by the Dutch in 1688. It took industrialisation which happened after the American revolution to make Britain a world power.
You can use the "it's my opinion, I'm entitled to my opinion, I don't have to justify my opinion, I can think what I like, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALALALALALA" defence as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that your opinion is fucking retarded. You can't argue that losing the colonies caused England to fall as a superpower when the colonies were lost before England became a superpower and a very long time before England fell as a superpower.
|
Well this is how I feel about this thread right now...
|
On March 24 2010 05:49 fulmetljaket wrote:
the new system is unconstitutional.
the politicians who voted yes wont make it past november.
im ready to march on washington. s'ko.
Agreed.
And also agreed that this thread is turning into a which country is better stupid flamefest which has nothing to do about the original topic of health care.
|
Someone posted this on smashboards today regarding Health Care. I thought it was pretty clever and pretty much sums up how I feel when people say "zomg, this is socialist! wtf USA, we're not communist nazis!":
|
United States43459 Posts
On March 24 2010 06:08 LuckyFool wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:49 fulmetljaket wrote:
the new system is unconstitutional.
the politicians who voted yes wont make it past november.
im ready to march on washington. s'ko. Agreed. And also agreed that this thread is turning into a which country is better stupid flamefest which has nothing to do about the original topic of health care.
It's not really. It's one guy who doesn't know anything about history who keeps saying really stupid things and then getting called out and trying to defend them unsuccessfully. People from both sides of the Atlantic who do know about history agreeing that he's wrong. It's not about which country is better.
|
On March 24 2010 06:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 05:57 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:44 Neverborn wrote:On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 03:51 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You don't seem to understand democracy. In a democracy you have to submit to the will of the Government as they hold the mandate of the majority. America is a democracy. Therefore people on American soil should have to submit to other people's will. If you don't like it I suggest anarchy. lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time. Nicely done, Kwark Oh shame shame, britain wasnt a superpower during the 18th century? oh lordie... but who cares its my opinion and not central to my argument No, it wasn't a superpower during the 18th century. France and Spain were both more powerful nations and England had recurring issues in both Ireland and Scotland. England was a European great power but you have to remember that England was conquered by the Dutch in 1688. It took industrialisation which happened after the American revolution to make Britain a world power. You can use the "it's my opinion, I'm entitled to my opinion, I don't have to justify my opinion, I can think what I like, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALALALALALA" defence as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that your opinion is fucking retarded. You can't argue that losing the colonies caused England to fall as a superpower when the colonies were lost before England became a superpower and a very long time before England fell as a superpower.
im tryign to get off it, its not important. its just my opinion of the start of decline for the fall of the british empire, very similiar to the roman empire falling. there is no exact incident but some feel it started with this or that.
im not trying to say its my opinion and im entitled... its an opinion, it cant be proven as fact, thats my point on that matter. is the matter clarified? (i dont care to derail the thread in that way, just a tangent that popped in there) you're too fascinated with that part of my argument, what about the rest?
|
is that guy actually arguing the fall of the british empire was the result of losing the american colonies ..... try the notion that one race of gentlman (gentry) has the right to govern others ... kill and steal land ( the same ideas america was founded on ( i.e the theft of native lands and systematic genocide of thier culture ) because they are superior died out .. losing complete dominence of the worlds oceans ... unforscene costs in maintaining colonies ....japan defeating russia didn't help as it showed the asian world (i.e india) that european super powers are not invincible ..... soo many reasons all of which happened much much later than your point ,,, as a matter of fact England gained imperial control AFTER it lost the american colonies ,,, i still dont know what the hell he is talking about
|
short sighted mother fuckers. are you really going to say that losing the colonies which happen to turn into the world leading super power had nothing to do with or maybe concede that it was central to the eventual fall of the british empire. either way not important to healthcare.
|
United States43459 Posts
On March 24 2010 06:12 Xenixx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 06:05 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:57 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:44 Neverborn wrote:On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 04:16 Xenixx wrote:[quote] lol you can't insult me sir, you don't even realize America isn't a democracy. As a point of fact, America is a representative democracy. And to help you out further; http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.htmle: furthermore, since you are not an American citizen I will enlighten you. We fought a war with you (and kicked the shit out of you. embarrassing at the time, still embarrassing to this day ) over such a crazy idea. some founders were so terrified of any government that they had this crazy idea that everyone should run themselves in the country and there was chaos. an incident outside of boston led to a convention where a lot of the issues were resolved. the ideas of this country are that we as a whole do not have to bow to whatever someone else says simply. read the constitution, no other nation in the world merits what we have and that is why i'm offended that some jackass says 'welcome to the rest of the civilized world' when it comes to government control. lol Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd. Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time. Nicely done, Kwark Oh shame shame, britain wasnt a superpower during the 18th century? oh lordie... but who cares its my opinion and not central to my argument No, it wasn't a superpower during the 18th century. France and Spain were both more powerful nations and England had recurring issues in both Ireland and Scotland. England was a European great power but you have to remember that England was conquered by the Dutch in 1688. It took industrialisation which happened after the American revolution to make Britain a world power. You can use the "it's my opinion, I'm entitled to my opinion, I don't have to justify my opinion, I can think what I like, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALALALALALA" defence as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that your opinion is fucking retarded. You can't argue that losing the colonies caused England to fall as a superpower when the colonies were lost before England became a superpower and a very long time before England fell as a superpower. im tryign to get off it, its not important. its just my opinion of the start of decline for the fall of the british empire, very similiar to the roman empire falling. there is no exact incident but some feel it started with this or that. im not trying to say its my opinion and im entitled... its an opinion, it cant be proven as fact, thats my point on that matter. is the matter clarified? (i dont care to derail the thread in that way, just a tangent that popped in there) you're too fascinated with that part of my argument, what about the rest?
Opinions aren't these magical things which are above judgement. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean you're not allowed to measure it in terms of factual accuracy.
If I were to say "In my opinion the Roman Empire fell because the Empire was made of butter and climate change caused the butter to melt" then you'd not go "well, I don't buy it but it's his opinion so that's fair enough". You'd say "that's fucking retarded".
It is in the spirit of that that I say it's fucking retarded to suggest something that happened before the emergence of a nation caused the downfall of a nation. It may be your opinion but that doesn't make it any less stupid, it just makes you stupid to have it.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
US independence did set the tone for the UK. It was at its best trading, dominating the oceans and taxing its colonies slightly for the upkeep of its navy. It was at its worst fighting land wars in Asia, Africa, and Americas, and taxing its colonies to the point of rebellion. The UK did delay the pain of later wars by financing them with borrowing.
|
On March 24 2010 06:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2010 06:12 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 06:05 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:57 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:44 Neverborn wrote:On March 24 2010 05:35 KwarK wrote:On March 24 2010 05:31 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 05:21 ghrur wrote:On March 24 2010 04:53 Xenixx wrote:On March 24 2010 04:34 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
lol
Democracy in the modern usage of the word means representative democracy. Of course it's not a direct democracy because that'd be absurd. You're just nitpicking there, it is evident to every reader that when I say democracy I mean representative democracy because that's the type of democracy we use. Your point is about as valid as saying "you're not an American citizen because America is a continent, not a country". True but utterly absurd.
Your war against England had very, very little to do with democracy and to suggest you kicked the shit out of England when England remained uncommited to the cause throughout is a rather strange exaggeration of a petty victory. Nobody in Britain is at all embarrassed by the independence of America, perhaps because you are the cultural child of Britain (and the French revolution) in almost every way, your independence represents your wish to choose to do what we're doing. I do however take offence to your idea that you know more about the history than I would, Americans are, in general, remarkably ill educated about the revolution. This is mainly out of a need for the country to have a foundation myth, to create an epic idealistic struggle through which they could justify their existence and draw the fables that would define their soul. It's a fun story and a very useful one but that doesn't make it any less artificial, something which is more apparent to the outside observer. Huh thats odd, everyone else in the world still entertains the idea that democracy means one thing and representative democracy means another thing... I guess we're all not as bright as Kwark from the UK. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracyhttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/representative democracyYou could just say you were wrong and save face at this point. We've already established that you don't know what you're talking about but just to keep that going. When did I say that we kicked the shit out of 18th century England for democracy? I'll reiterate that we fought that war over other people trying to tell you what to do simply. While yes it may not be popular, some folks have admitted to being sore over that situation. How could you not be? England fell apart after losing the colonies. But thats another matter. Hey stereotypes reflect how brilliant you are Kwark. Don't they? All us Americans are just remarkably ill educated and we don't know no better. Tell me then o' brilliant jackass, what game are you playing at? Educate me on the founders. Tell me something I don't know. Tell me about the men who sat down and worked through compromises 'til at last the constitution remained. What the hell are you TALKING about? England fell apart after the World Wars, not losing America. England still had a huge empire up until WWI. Hell, it was the age of fucking imperialism before WWI where England, France, Germany, etc. duked it out for power in Africa and China. Furthermore, England had the industrial revolution in the 1800s, a little after they lost America. If having an industrial revolution that put you on top of the economic world meant you fall apart, okay then, you're completely right. And yes, you ARE remarkably ill educated about European History. Have you ever even taken a course on it? God, England falling apart after losing America is a JOKE. Stop tarnishing the reputations of Americans in European history alright? You clearly don't know any of it. Random note about the founders: Thomas Jefferson was a PIMP. :p oh please, losing the colonies in that war was so MONUMENTAL for the british fall you can't argue that wasn't the turning point. lol The colonies were lost a good 30 years before the rise of Britain to the status of superpower and 150 years before the fall. Britain with the 13 colonies = not superpower Britain without the 13 colonies = superpower Your conclusion, losing the 13 colonies caused the decline of Britain as a superpower. My conclusion, you waste my time. Nicely done, Kwark Oh shame shame, britain wasnt a superpower during the 18th century? oh lordie... but who cares its my opinion and not central to my argument No, it wasn't a superpower during the 18th century. France and Spain were both more powerful nations and England had recurring issues in both Ireland and Scotland. England was a European great power but you have to remember that England was conquered by the Dutch in 1688. It took industrialisation which happened after the American revolution to make Britain a world power. You can use the "it's my opinion, I'm entitled to my opinion, I don't have to justify my opinion, I can think what I like, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, LALALALALALALA" defence as much as you like but it doesn't change the fact that your opinion is fucking retarded. You can't argue that losing the colonies caused England to fall as a superpower when the colonies were lost before England became a superpower and a very long time before England fell as a superpower. im tryign to get off it, its not important. its just my opinion of the start of decline for the fall of the british empire, very similiar to the roman empire falling. there is no exact incident but some feel it started with this or that. im not trying to say its my opinion and im entitled... its an opinion, it cant be proven as fact, thats my point on that matter. is the matter clarified? (i dont care to derail the thread in that way, just a tangent that popped in there) you're too fascinated with that part of my argument, what about the rest? Opinions aren't these magical things which are above judgement. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean you're not allowed to measure it in terms of factual accuracy. If I were to say "In my opinion the Roman Empire fell because the Empire was made of butter and climate change caused the butter to melt" then you'd not go "well, I don't buy it but it's his opinion so that's fair enough". You'd say "that's fucking retarded". It is in the spirit of that that I say it's fucking retarded to suggest something that happened before the emergence of a nation caused the downfall of a nation. It may be your opinion but that doesn't make it any less stupid, it just makes you stupid to have it.
im not saying its above judgement, im saying its fucking pointless to argue about an opinion kid. you can't prove im wrong and i cant prove im right. its a FUCKING opinion. you're absolutely allowed to say its "fucking retarded", because you have a different opinion and can support it just as i can support my opinion. do you see how that works?
in any case im going to say now that you cant understand where im coming from when i say losing the colonies was the beginning of the end for the empire. had they held onto them... eh? youre too short sighted to see that big picture.
|
On March 24 2010 06:19 TanGeng wrote:
US independence did set the tone for the UK. It was at its best trading, dominating the oceans and taxing its colonies slightly for the upkeep of its navy. It was at its worst fighting land wars in Asia, Africa, and Americas, and taxing its colonies to the point of rebellion. The UK did delay the pain of later wars by financing them with borrowing.
all im saying... back to healthcare reform kwark, please answer my other arguments now that youve made this riveting as you always do
|
So I'm confused, the thread is entitled healthcare reform in the US, but I see tools chime in from other countries that likely share different views and at the very least will feel no effect from this legislation.
By the way, this is about as socialist in nature as you can get. Its the only tax that will exist where simply being a legal citizen, I have to pay taxes, be fined if I don't, or have the IRS--with their 18,000 new agents--to enforce such refusal to pay said fines. Gotta have auto insurance..if you drive, gotta pay sales tax...if you buy thing, gotta pay your healthcare tax...if you exist. That's bullshit to me, its unconstitutional and until I decide I want healthcare I'm not paying to keep some fat ass alive any longer than they need to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y291/johnnychopsocky/Socialismisevilandamerican.png)
