Guns, Guns Guns

smr wrote:Daryl I have a bone to pick with your comments.

I'd like to visit the US to see your natural landscape beauty, but my wife wouldn't come, as she is frightened by your having the death penalty, no universal health care, gun crime, and generally higher crime rates.

Now, have you ever been outside Australia? If so, please list the countries because I bet you have been to countries that are more dangerous than the US. Ever been to China? Need I go on.

No, because there would be no point.

Daryl didn't say the US was the most dangerous country on earth did he? So listing other countries that are more dangerous is pointless.

The statement was just that it's *more dangerous than Australia*.

(Which it is.)

PeterZ wrote:
Do try to keep up.

Under a Parliamentary or Legislative sovereign nation, the citizens do not have the right to evict members of parliament because they are not sovereign. The authority to make laws does not reside with them. They are given the privilege to vote by Parliament. Parliament is free to change the law as they see fit and take that privilege away. Now, the citizens can rebel in protest, but that would be outside the law. In that sense the de facto authority is always with a large enough portion of citizens who are willing to fight to assert their displeasure.....We can discuss the justification for the Second Amendment another time.

Seriously, how can you be so frickin clueless?

So, you agree. Government run enterprises suck. You just want more chances to get it right instead of recognizing the incentives just don't work for them.

Sorry buddy them are pipe dreams. The CCCP tried the whole enchilada and illustrated they were best at killing people and breaking things. Even the the US proved were better at even that.

Ignoring the evidence of the opposite as usual when it suits you.
Most public enterprises here generate profits for the state.

Your progressive democrats gave us Clinton and his and her crony coporatism.

Yeah, what a horrible guy Clinton was, to actually dare and get a state budget surplus, oh the infamy!

How fortunate you were to get GWB so that 2001 was the last year of that dreaded surplus!

MAD-4A wrote:which never happened. no territory under the US flag was acquired without the majority of people there agreeing too it.

Naive and ignorant! Do read up a bit on history, please. You may also wish to remember that "colonies" are not by default part of the colonial nation.

Cuba for example was effectively a US colony after the Spanish-American war, which just happened to be started after a very "odd provocation".

And Hawaii most certainly did not ask to have their leadership overthrown by force.

MAD-4A wrote:If the US had been an "Empire" then there would be no France or japan now - both would be part of the US!

OMG... Japan started the war in 1941 exactly because of it was trying to become an empire, but wasn´t able to because there were already the other empires taking up space around it, UK, US, France, NL.

MAD-4A wrote:When US troops landed on Porto Rico in 1898, as they marched across the island towards the capital, all the buildings ahead of them consistently lowered the Spanish flag and raised the US flag before the army got there.

No, really? Come on! Are you so naive you dont understand that that would be the natural thing to do?

You actually think everyone who did that did so because they supported US taking over?

And even if it was true, imperialism does not become less imperialistic because the subjects ask for it.

MAD-4A wrote:No it doesn't, yes the Continent of South America has the name in it but they are not "Americans" that term internationally recognized as referring to citizens of the United States of America, not Ecuador or Brazil (and you know it).

Just because a lot of people misuse something does not mean that it is correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/american?s=t

adjective
1.
of or relating to the United States of America or its inhabitants:
an American citizen.
2.
of or relating to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere:
the American continents.
3.
of or relating to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones.


noun
4.
a citizen of the United States of America.
5.
a native or inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere.
6.
an Indian of North or South America.
7.
American English.
8.
a steam locomotive having a four-wheeled front truck, four driving wheels, and no rear truck.



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/american


: a person born, raised, or living in the U.S.

: a person born, raised, or living in North America or South America


Full Definition of AMERICAN
1
: an American Indian of North America or South America
2
: a native or inhabitant of North America or South America
3
: a citizen of the United States
4
: american english


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... h/American
1.1A native or inhabitant of any of the countries of North, South, or Central America.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... h/american


adjective

of or relating to the United States of America, its inhabitants, or their form of English
of or relating to the American continent

noun

a native or citizen of the US
a native or inhabitant of any country of North, Central, or South America
the English language as spoken or written in the United States




Sheesh, you don´t happen to remember that i´ve worked as a linguist do you?

If you want to properly specify people from USA, write "american" without capitalisation, because otherwise you are referring to people from "(The) America(s)" rather than "United States of America", as in the latter case "America" is not the name ("United States" is), hence capitalisation is incorrect.

And if you look hard, you can even find the above as being official policy with dictionary writers and linguists. Even if it is often not used correctly.

If there was a "United States of Europe", then people from it would not properly be written as "Europeans", but for the same reason "europeans", as there again would be a difference between the name of the state and the contintent.

People from USA are only "Americans" when that includes people from ALL of America.

@Tenshinai, I pointed out the example of the East Coast a couple of pages back. And the Republic of California only became US because a lot of US citizens where living there and I don't think that was on the up and up

SCC wrote:@Tenshinai, I pointed out the example of the East Coast a couple of pages back. And the Republic of California only became US because a lot of US citizens where living there and I don't think that was on the up and up

They were Mexican citizens who migrated from the US, and they rebelled from Mexico and asked to join the US. The US did not invade California and conquer it by force. What did you mean of the "east coast"? That made no sense at all. The Original US was the east coast.

Tenshinai wrote:Naive and ignorant! Do read up a bit on history, please...

I would quite agree that you are in need of this, I on the other hand have a perfect 4.0 in all my college level history and Government classes.

Tenshinai wrote:And even if it was true, imperialism does not become less imperialistic because the subjects ask for it.

You just disproved yourself as having any knowledge on the subject. If someone asks you to accept them as part of your group, that is absolutely not the same thing as putting a gun to there head and telling them they are joining or else. The fact that you would claim otherwise disproves any anti-American propaganda you parroted - read an actual history book once in a while and stop reading the false, revisionist, anti-American, propaganda lies you seam to have filled your head with. (had other comments but deleted them as superfluous, since you disproved your own validity)

MAD-4A wrote:You just disproved yourself as having any knowledge on the subject. If someone asks you to accept them as part of your group, that is absolutely not the same thing as putting a gun to there head and telling them they are joining or else. The fact that you would claim otherwise disproves any anti-American propaganda you parroted - read an actual history book once in a while and stop reading the false, revisionist, anti-American, propaganda lies you seam to have filled your head with. (had other comments but deleted them as superfluous, since you disproved your own validity)

To paraphrase something I read recently here:

There are three kinds of power you can use to build your empire. First, and most obviously, force of arms. You occupy and you kill every dissenter until no dissenter is left. This is easy to recognize, and what I think you understand as imperialist tactics.

Second, Economic power. Through superior economy, bind others to you so tightly that they have only an illusion of freedom left. Use that power to spread the empire's memes, make it self-sustaining. This is the american way.

Third, Philosophical power. Through superior philosophy, change how your would-be subjects make decisions. Get in their decision loops, alter their worldview so that your way is the only way for rational people to take. This is new, and people (and states) are starting to explore how to use it; The supposedly open and free Internet which connects us all is, it turns out, susceptible to degrading into a series of lightly connected small world networks; by manipulating how information enters and propagates through these networks, we can exert influence.


By the definition of the first kind of Empire, America isn't one. On the contrary, America is the liberator, the saviour from oppression.
But that's not the whole story. It turns out that America does, on occasion, manipulate events such that it is asked to liberate. Sometimes this works beautifully. Sometimes, it doesn't (See: Afghanistan and Iraq), in which case America reverts to Type 1 Empire.

In short, it doesn't matter if you extend your empire through force, or by presenting yourself as the best alternative. You are still extending your empire. You are still imperialist.

MAD-4A wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:And even if it was true, imperialism does not become less imperialistic because the subjects ask for it.

You just disproved yourself as having any knowledge on the subject. If someone asks you to accept them as part of your group, that is absolutely not the same thing as putting a gun to there head and telling them they are joining or else. The fact that you would claim otherwise disproves any anti-American propaganda you parroted - read an actual history book once in a while and stop reading the false, revisionist, anti-American, propaganda lies you seam to have filled your head with. (had other comments but deleted them as superfluous, since you disproved your own validity)

I find this entire exchange hilarious.

Go ask a native American their opinion on how the US didn't take over all that land by force with guns to people's heads but rather everyone just joined up eagerly.

Or did you forget about them?

MAD's understandung is understandable. You must remember that the history of us white bastards is written by white bastards.
It takes a great deal for us to be honest about it.
For example, you could argue that the south is only part of the USA due to force of arms. Utah as well for that matter.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

MAD-4A wrote:I would quite agree that you are in need of this, I on the other hand have a perfect 4.0 in all my college level history and Government classes.

Good for you. Have you worked as a historian? I have. Or maybe i should just revise my expecations of US college classes quality downwards?

MAD-4A wrote:If someone asks you to accept them as part of your group, that is absolutely not the same thing as putting a gun to there head and telling them they are joining or else.

And in case you missed it, i never said that.

Putting a gun to the head is effectively what was done in Hawaii, but they became a US state and hence were at least not treated as a colony.

South and central America as well as the Caribbean however is filled to the brim with nations who has been treated as US colonies.

Rest of the world, especially East Asia has a number of others.

MAD-4A wrote:The fact that you would claim otherwise disproves any anti-American propaganda you parroted - read an actual history book once in a while and stop reading the false, revisionist, anti-American, propaganda lies you seam to have filled your head with. (had other comments but deleted them as superfluous, since you disproved your own validity)

Ah yes, what a glorious showing of knowledge about the history of your own nation, oh my how amazing.

Please read up, or shut up.