Tune in the news and pay attention to the video images of Bernie Edwards going to jail for 25 years. Now, go down to your local "adult" store and buy some lube in preparation for your own date with justice.
"Heh, I got a 128k (2 channel) isdn connection when 14k4 modems where still the thing... The throughput and latency of it were just mindboggling at the time.. Now that I think of it, there are probably quite a few places on the planet where that would still qualify as broadband."
That's what really made me mad about Pacific Bell (now SBC) here in California. In 1986, my Atari 1040ST supported ISDN natively. Did Pacific Bell deply residential service? No. It wasn't until after 1996 that they did half-heartedly, and by that time, the word on the street was "wait for cable modems or DSL." Pac Bell even tried to charge peak minutes usage on ISDN. And thus they were never successful in getting residential customers to move off 56K and onto ISDN. Its a shame they had such stupid management.
"The demand from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo is a lot higher so IBM doesn't need to cry;)"
Perhaps. Although the PS3 will probably be the only one of the three contracts that matter. And unless IBM has everything locked up, Sony could outsource the Cell contract to Toshiba.
Microsoft already has a guaranteed opt-out clause in their contract.
So this short term victory coupled with the loss of Apple as a major contract could turn around and bite IBM Microelectronics in a major way. Combine that with AMD having more manufacturing facilities and then IBM Microelectronics begins to look like Freescale.
"I'd like to see IBM make some inexpensive ($2000) PowerPC workstations (like the PowerMac G5). PowerPC seems to be a nice processor. Especialy if it has a decent OS behind it. If we could get some solid Linux support for a IBM PowerPC workstation, it would be able to do some nice video processing. Look at how good Apple did, even with a hacked (thrown together) OS."
Maybe now IBM will have an incentive to make such a beast a possibility now that they don't have to worry about offending Apple's sensibilities. That is probably why IBM never really got serious about making PPC the perfect Linux platform for the past several years.
"Or more accurately, the NRA won't compromise because the gun companys throw millions of dollars at politicians to protect their profits."
Well, as long as I don't commit a crime, I don't want to be told I can't purchase an AR-15. Thank you very much. It is quite the cure to a home invasion.
You have good points because at this time, I am at a loss of the number of proposed seats offered the Colonies at the time in the British Parliament, although in the grand scheme, probably no less as alotted to Scotland, Wales, or Ireland.
I will take issue with this point:
"Even after the progress of the past several decades towards devolution, the UK is still ultimately a unitary state, while, in spite of the trends of the Twentieth Century, the US has a federal nature. British Parliament combines the roles of both the US Congress and the (currently) 50 state legislatures. In many respects, it would be more proper to compare the number of MPs to the sum total of all state legislators in the US."
I disagree. Britain, through devolution, and rather quickly the past few years, is heading towards a *Federal Britain.* The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Irish Parliament. What is missing is a strictly English Parliament, and a Cornish Assembly.
There is also the possibility of Blair reforming the House of Lords further into a federal system.
As a fan of history, I am miffed that on principle, the hereditary peers were kicked out of the House of Lords. If a hereditary peer is found suitable, then that Lord should be seated. I don't find the peerage through that nature any more disrespectful than packing the House with a bunch of government stooges loyal to the particular Prime Minister of the time, as compared to voting them into office.
You also do not include the power of the town councils into your equation.
"No it isn't. It's a democratic organization, which means it's rather slow and decisions are consensus-based. Still, democracy is a good thing, no?"
How is it democratic? I didn't vote for my representative to the UN. Neither did you. If it were truly democratic, then the Chinese masses would vote for their representatives too. Oh, wait a sec. China isn't even a representative democracy. Taiwan is...but they aren't members of the UN.
"lol No it couldn't. You could lob missiles at them from the coast but you would have no army to occupy it with. Yes, you could cause much death and destruction, but you couldn't invade. Anyone who thinks differently is a moron. If we have learned anything from Iraq it is how indispensable ground forces are to a successful conclusion of a war. And by the way, China has nukes too, so you would probably not use yours."
Why would we want to invade China? The only logical American action against China would be to use nuclear weapons against it in order to prevent their invasion of Taiwan, or shoring up a North Korean assault on South Korea as they did in the Korean War. Nuking China would also prevent them from being such a commercial rival. Although that would definitely piss off Wal-Mart. Oh wait, that might be a good thing.
China too has nukes. But as long as their launchers were taken out, they could not hit the U.S. Yet another reason why our Administration pulled out of the ABM Treaty.
"It means that the American society is more sane than that which could sacrifice millions without consequence. But it is also a weakness in war. What some Americans need to understand is that the US doesn't need military superiority to be a great nation. In fact it might be a better one without it."
That's an admirable opinion, but unfortunately, one that is not realistic until the majority of the planet lives under democratic regimes.
If the U.S. does nothing, then who will stop Kim Jong Il? Nobody. The U.N. will stop him as much as the U.N. stopped Saddam Hussein. If the U.S. does not step up to China, then who will protect Taiwan? Definitely not the U.N. because Taiwan isn't even a member. If the U.S. does nothing against Al Quaeda, who will? Certainly not the French. And in 30 years time, if we do nothing, we'll be condemned in history for doing nothing, just as the return to American isolationism after WWI is widely condemned for allowing for the rise of Nazi Germany as well as Japan's aggression througout Asia. We still suffer the consequences of both inactions today.
It is unfortunate that Western cultural dominance (meaning the imposition of liberal democracy, tolerance, etc. and a forward-thinking culture that will lead us to the stars and this singular rock existence) of the entire planet must be carried out through American hegemony. Essentially 21st Century gunboat diplomacy.
"Okay, you admit to being a social liberal and then try to argue what I said was wrong. I simply CATEGORIZED the comment and you laid yourself into it."
A fiscal conservative/social liberal is still a political conservative. And more at home in the Republican Party - despite the actions of the so-called *Christian Coalition* - than in the Democratic Party. For examples, look at the current Governor of California, or Arizona Senator John McCain. We just don't care to argue over abortion, and we support stem cell research, as any thinking person should.
"Honestly, the whole point for me saying it was because he has such contempt for the country and its basis in existance. He obviously holds some sort of grudge. Personally, I could not stand to feel that way about the place I lived and would WANT to leave."
He? You mean "I". Don't address me directly and then refer to myself as "he." Yes, I love my country. I just don't like our educational system continuing to spread lies about its founding. We're all big enough to get past that and think about the future. The problem is, when the government spreads lies like that, when a person learns differently through education, it makes them cynical about everything, especially the political process. Very counter-productive. Although I'm sure the educated members of Roman society felt the same way about their pantheon of gods and all that. Probably knew it was bullshit but an effective means of keeping the general masses in check. You can take that as a critique on modern organized religion as well if you'd like.
"As for the rest of your post about how we'd be so hunky-doory (doorey? oh well) had we stayed in the British Empire, did you even think twice about how they were holding the core industrial pieces of the puzzle so they held all the cards? I love how YOU liberals feel that you are the only "educated" people on ANY subject you feel like talking about. I'll gladly start nitpicking if you want me too."
Britain became the big free-trading power of the 19th Century. Capital flows to wherever provides the best profit. British money from the industrial revolution flowed to the United States as industry matured in Britain. That fueled our own industrial rise in the 19th Century, as well as the rise of industrial Germany. British money paid for our railroads to be built. Had we stayed within the British Empire, that would not have changed. Crack open a university level history book, it might do you some good.
Does that include going around and buying up the worthless Continental Congress War debt from the common folk? The Congress defaulted on the debt so it was worthless paper, just as the German currency became during the Weimar Republic. Washington went around and bought that debt up, literally "pennies on the dollar." He then had the Continental Congress honor the debt that he bought up cheaply, and made a very big profit off of it.
Yep, that was pretty great. And honorable too. Not.
"yes there are several differences. 1. We can't buy handguns of any kind and are limited in the kinds of rifles and shotguns that we can aquire. (clip size is severely limited and no semi or fully auto weapons of any kind) 2. You must have the fire-arm registered and have a hunting license to use the gun. 3. You must take a series of safety courses in order to get your lisence. 4. You can not store a loaded gun. Guns must locked away properly and seperately from ammo. 5. You cannot carry a firearm of any kind on your person. It must be stored unloaded while in transit. 6. You can't buy guns at fucking corner stores and quickie marts. Only at specific lisenced locations."
In truth, that's not much different than most States. California has some pretty tough gun-control laws as well.
There does need to be a compromise, but the NRA won't compromise because they see that as a "slippery slope" towards an inevitable outlawing of all guns, which is the goal of some of the liberal extremists. They quickly cite how gun-control has proceeded similarly in England and Australia. I seem to recall that in England, their Olympic rifle*men* have to train outside of the country now, thanks to their rather-excessive laws.
"and since im skeptical and youre claiming facts that you say none of us learned in our general education, could you cite some sources so at least *I* could look them up and know the truth?"
Forgot to mention the so-called *Boston Massacre.* Especially the trial and the acquittal.
Don't forget the "Sons of Liberty" and read about their *exploits* in the context of the 18th century. And then discuss in your mind whether they were terrorists or not.
There are also other figures to check out. Like Tom Paine, and how he returned to England after the Revolution, yet the King never had him executed (although the French tried to once their revolution got out of hand). Or how Charles Lee once cussed out the King directly to him, and then jockeyed through his allies in the Continental Congress to depose George Washington's command. Yet despite leading forces against the King's army, Charles Lee was never threatened with execution when he returned to England either. Now compare that with how the United States federal government treated the so-called "Loyalists" (or Tories) after the end of the war. The government confiscated their property and they essentially were forced to settle in Canada. And then, despite promises to pay for those confiscations as guaranteed in the Treaty of Paris, to this day, the Federal Government has not paid off the descendants of those forgotten Americans.
The subject will then lead you to the War of 1812. The rematch of sorts that almost led to the United States being conquerred by the British. How the White House was burnt (and a freak storm saved it) by a Canadian regiment of the British Army as payback for Americans burning down a parliamentry building in Canada a year earlier (I believe it was in York if I recall). You'll also see how had the British won the War of 1812, there'd be a sovereign Native American nation on the Great Plains today, as well as reading about the man who Union General (of the Civil War) Sherman was named after (in terms of his middle name).
Very interesting stuff. But brace yourself. You might get as mad as Sean Connery in "Zardoz.":)
"radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today)" Hmmm did the Son's of Liberty bomb theater houses? Did they blow up shoppers at the market? Did they slaughter repair men. Did they intentianally murder as many ordinary working people as they could?"
I just remembered something else the Sons of Liberty caused. The so-called "Boston Massacre." For a full year, the Sons of Liberty harassed the British troops. They threw rocks and snowballs, and that was the least they did. For a full year. And then an unruly crowd gets fired upon by those same troops, after a full year of harassment. And caused by the agitation of Samuel Adams who wanted to provoke such an incident to milk it for all it was worth, which he did.
It is also wise to remember that the Battle of Bunker Hill was also caused because the British forces had orders to arrest the radical/terrorist Samuel Adams. Think about that the next time you drink the beer named in his honor. Can you imagine in 200 years drinking a beer named after Osama bin Laden, if Islam retracts its prohibition on alcoholic drinks by then?
"Technically he's espousing the conservative view of the time, which was that the British government was in the right and the colonials were the whiny babies that wanted to be protected by the British Army but didn't want to pay for it or follow the rules."
Very true. Its also the side that holds up the best under historical scrutiny. Otherwise, I'd be much happier to claim the Founding Fathers were right in what they did. After all, that is the prevailing wisdom amongst the common folk of this country that even give one lick about the subject beyond the superficial blowing up of fireworks of July 4th. Seriously, if there was ever a successful attempt at reunification, its marking would still have to be on July 4th in order to pacify the Wal-Mart masses.
I cannot excuse the Founding Fathers in inviting their blood enemies (the French) into a civil war. That's a definite "no no," and it is wise to remember that King Charles I lost his head at the end of the English Civil War for trying to do the same thing.
The other funny thing to point out is the attitude of the British government at the time to the rebellion. I forget the official who said it, but it goes along something like this (and I paraphrase)... "why is it that we hear the cries for liberty from the colonials it comes from the drivers of the negroids?" That was in response to Patrick Henry's call for "give me liberty or death." Patrick Henry was a slaveowner.
"Washington personally intervened on the Iroquois' behalf in a land dispute with the state of New York in the late 1780's. There was a persistent tradition among the Iroquois that after his death he was consequently the only white man permitted to visit the Indian region of the afterlife! (Source: "League of the Iroquois" by Henry Louis Morgan, a pioneering work of ethnology written in the 1840's -- I just happened to be glancing through it the other day.)"
I will admit I am unfamiliar with that subject, but I'd be willing to bet it wasn't the half of the Iroquois Nation that had been sided with the British. You know, like Joseph Brandt's side...
"Yeah, well, Franklin was kind of a wild dude. Maybe not the best father, and it wouldn't surprise me if his son turned out in such a way that deserved to be left out of the will."
You mean like staying loyal to the government that your father made a decent living siding with for much of his professional life, and then turn traitor to? You mean like refusing to switch your allegience just because your own father switched because he thought the political winds were favoring the other side? And getting locked in jail for your beliefs. If you could do that to your own son, then I guess you could truthfully state that Franklin's son deserved to be left out of his will.
"sorry but that is a load of BS, I live in Canada and I never have to worry about being shot by a criminal because 99.99% of the time they are not going to have a gun. And the 0.01% chance that they DO have a gun, it came from your fucking country anyways."
Yet even the liberal Michael Moore showed in "Bowling for Columbine" that western Canadians were just as armed as Americans are, yet have a lower crime rate. Unless that was another inaccurate Moore-ism.
"It's liberal because it can be taken as anti-institution and it literally calls our Founding Fathers morons."
Nope. I am a fiscal conservative/social liberal who is strong on national defense. But yes, I do consider the Founding Fathers to be morons. They hurt the Empire to which they had prosperred from. In doing so, they aided the true enemy of the time, which was France. The alliance with France was so flawed, that the United States found itself fighting a naval war with France in 1800.
Had we stayed in the Empire, my speculation is that the American Civil War (actually its second Civil War since the Revolution was the first) would not have happened because slavery would've been abolished 30 years before - as it was in the Empire - and the slaveholders would have received monetary compensation. True, it would have meant sharecropping, but at least 500,000 + American men would not have lost their lives over a stupid war. Had the Colonies stayed in the Empire, the British Empire would have been even stronger than it later evolved into, probably so strong that Germany would never have even been crazy enough to start a war with which became World War I. Which means World War II would never have happened either.
And I can truly say the Founding Fathers were morons for two other points. The radicals screamed bloody murder at the British over the Imperial trade system and its supposed unfairness. The Colonials wanted to trade with the rest of the world without any oversight by the British. So after Independence, they got their wish. The British then locked the United States out of the Imperial trade. This caused a massive recession/depression in the independent United States. The repurcussion of this? Look up "Shay's Rebellion." Oh yeah, the new States also jacked up the tax rates 15 times what they had been under Colonial times, even when including those "tyrannical" British taxes. Yeah, that's pretty moronic if you ask me.
"Generally, conservatives are not going to come out and say that. Honestly, the "Liberal poster" should probably not be living in the US because he quite obviously detests the country and even more so, its founding."
Typical moronic response. Criticize the system under the free society we live in, and abruptly told by someone uneducated on the subject to leave the country. Interesting to note, the Loyalists were kicked out of the country after the Revolutionary War because dissent was not tolerated. The first monies collected by the States and the Federal government were monies generated by the auction of the seized property of the Loyalists. They owned most of New York. And despite the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, the Federal Government never paid off the Loyalists, whose descendents live in Ontario, Canada. They have a lawsuit against the Feds over this. Its also the reason why English Canada is still not part of the U.S.
I love my country, but I am big enough to admit that its founding was based upon bullshit. We could've turned out even greater than what we did had we stayed a part of the Empire.
"Modern liberal. Not to mention conservatives believe in bearing arms et al, while liberals do not (even if they go hunting every now and then...)."
I like guns. Although hunting people is more of a sport than hunting animals who do not have weapons that can fire back. I think Jesse Ventura said much of the same thing.
"Funny that you whole heartedly ignore any wrongdoing on the brits side. A few things that should be noted which play into why "Radicals" burned a british naval vessel. The british navy had a bad habit of forcing people against there will into service through abduction and once out to see threatening death if they refused to cooperate."
Big deal. The British Navy empressed smugglers. Smuggling was the big industry of New England. So they empressed tea smugglers, and the very same smugglers who were involved with actively trading with the French (the enemy) during the Seven Years War. Cry me a river over violating the rights of criminals. Its not like the French didn't do the same thing (empressment) or any other European naval power at the time.
Our government has a long history of emptying the jails during wartime to feed the needs of the military. It was done in WWII, and extensively during Vietnam. Considering we have 2 million people locked up in prison today (although some of those numbers are distorted highly due to the stupid war on marijuana) and the military is experiencing a difficult time keeping troop numbers up, perhaps its time to empty the jails again.
"But hey, those "radicals" were evil and not reacting to a situation created by the british navy and gov't."
Yeah, like intimidating people into boycotting British goods, burning government property, sacking homes, drowning people, tarring and feathering them (leading to death), lynchings, etc. That's right...that's called "terrorism."
"It was, rather, Crown recognition of their *own* parliaments or assemblies and equivalents, and to be treated as a sovereign people, rather than as subjects of a distant Parliament."
A distant Parliament? Well, let's see here. Washington D.C. to Sacramento CA is very distant. About as equally distant as London to New York. So do you mean by your assertion that Washington D.C. does not have the authority to make law for California then, using your own argument? What about Hawai'i? My whole point is the various claims used to justify the Revolution do not hold up under scrutiny. They are infact, ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that Britain was considered the most "liberal" form of government at the time. If you want to talk about grieved citizens/subject, you should talk about the French at that time. They did have a right to a revolution in creating a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain's, but they went too far after it was proved the French King was a traitor.
The Crown, and its agent, Parliament, had every right to make law for the Empire. The Colonial Assemblies, in relation to Parliament, were similar in their scope as the modern State Assemblies are to the Federal Congress. Same argument.
"2) During the French and Indian Wars, the British (willfully or not, it depends on your cynicism) performed less than adequately in defending the frontiers of the colonies from the ravages of the Indians. But to make matters worse, the British actively forbade and punished the frontiers, especially in Pennsylvania, from raising arms and militias to protect themselves."
Funny that the criticism of the time had to do with the cowardice level of the colonial militias and not the ineffectiveness of the British Army and their Mohawk allies during the 7 Years War. That level of cowardice was also present during the Revolution. Washington, for example, hated the militias and the riflemen because they'd "pack up shop" at any moment and go home to plant crops instead of fight, or they'd run away when the battle started. After 1763, the British had no patience with Colonial squatters who tried to settle in the Native lands (which they were prohibited from doing so by the Proclamation of 1763) and directly cause a conflict with the Native tribes. Thus they brought it upon themselves.
"3) Then, to make matters even worse the British imposed the stamp and tea taxes on the colonies in order to finance the wars which had already ravaged the colonies... all with the patronizing air that the Americans should be thankful they were allowed to pay taxes."
The taxes were owed to pay off the debt incurred during the 7 Years War that mainly went to protecting the North American colonies from the French because the colonials proved they were unable to do the job themselves. Its not patronizing by the British, it was the ungratefulness of 1/5th of the Colonial public who chose to rebel against the King who had guaranteed their liberty.
"4) And Washington, while not a great general in the mold of Grant, Lee, or MacArthur, was certainly competent enough to wait for French assistance, given the staggeringly low resources he had at his disposal. Moreover, during the Seven Years War, it didn't matter how competent he was or what language he spoke, he was not going to rise beyond a certain point, because Spencer or not, he was a bloody colonist, and nothing more."
Bullshit. That's like arguing that Wellington should not have rose so highly in the British Army because he was Irish. Or Sir William Johnson, for that matter. What about Joseph Brandt? He was a Mohawk; a non-white. He became a British General. And he earned that rank. It wasn't a grant from the "big chief" in order to buy alliegence on the frontier. Had Washington proved himself in the field during the Seven Years War, learned French, and didn't sign a stupid surrender that placed all the blame on the war on the British side (because he couldn't read what he was signing...great legal deci
""radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today)" Hmmm did the Son's of Liberty bomb theater houses? Did they blow up shoppers at the market? Did they slaughter repair men. Did they intentianally murder as many ordinary working people as they could? Your accusation is wrong."
No, you are the one who is incorrect and does not know his history. Do a review of the "Sons of Liberty" and you will see for yourself that they intimidated people, lynched people, and destroyed government property. Just because suicide bombing had not been invented back then does not excuse them from being labelled as "terrorists," which they were. Drowning a man for saying "God Save the King" is terrorism. Tarring and feathering people, leading to their violent death in front of a large crowd is no worse than beheading innocent people on camera.
"Washington was great for many reasons. The colonial army followed him with great loyalty. He won many victories, he won against the British. You want a perfect war."
Read up on his conduct in the 7 Years War. He was a spiteful man, and nothing he did in the 7 Years War would lead him to be considered "great." And had the British not been fighting the French, the Dutch, and the Spanish all at the same time they were trying to put down a small rebellion in the Colonies, Washington would have been hanged for treason. He wouldn't have even been beheaded which was the *fitting* execution for royals and military leaders.
He could have ruled the country through the military, he didn't. He could have rulled the country through politics, winning election after election (there were no term limits on the presedency then), but he choose the leave after his second term which set such a strong precident that legal enforcement was not needed untill many years after Washington died.
Big deal. Julius Caesar refused a crown in Rome. Now there was a great military leader. If you want to pick an example of a great military leader born to the landed gentry, don't aim so low as Washington. Use Oliver Cromwell as an example. He too refused a crown. And he didn't make blunders in the field like Washington later did.
Had Washington been considered great, he wouldn't have had to fight being replaced by the Continental Congress. The Congress did try to replace him with Charles Lee.
Had Washington been truly great, there would've been a serious attempt to make him a King. There was a little talk about it, but King George III's son came close to being made the King of America. Noah Webster, the man who started "Webster's Dictionary" tried making the Prince of Wales the King of the United States, and he lost by 1 VOTE.
"You seem to think Washington was an inept man motivated by spite and a desire for creating his own Dynasty."
The facts speak for themselves. He couldn't speak French and when combined with his blunders in the 7 Years War kept him from getting the permanent commission in the British Army that he wanted and felt owed to him as a member of the gentry. He then *graciously* offered up his Command services to the Contiental Congress *first* fwith his own specially tailored uniform. He then spent the rest of the war trying to transform the Continental Army into the equal of the British Army, using the same tactics and extreme discipline. And as for his dynastic ambitions, he succeeded since so many people such as you parrot the idea that he graciously rejected power after his victory, when in truth, he was only aping what Caesar and Cromwell had done famously before him. Yes, his whole life showed nothing but the desire for ambition.
"and since im skeptical and youre claiming facts that you say none of us learned in our general education, could you cite some sources so at least *I* could look them up and know the truth?"
Well, I'll do even better. Ask for a syllabus of any lower and/or upper (preferred) division Colonial American/Revolutionary War class(es) offered at your nearest University. Probably can be found online on their website at this point in the 21st Century.
Here's an area to focus as to one of the main causes of the American Revolution: The Royal Proclamation of 1763. And what led to that Proclamation, the uprising of Pontiac. If you want to read about Washington's blunder(s) in the prior war, look under the historical subjects of "French and Indian War" (as it was known as in the Colonies and to this day in the U.S.) or "7 Years War." You should also look up "Sir William Johnson," and "Thomas Hutchinson." Other good figures to look up are "Joseph Brandt," the Mohawk and British General. The Mohawk tribe is also another good study too.
History books on the subject from American scholars started being published in the early 20th Century with a more rational review of the causes and consequences of the War. Earlier than that, it would be from British or European scholars if you are looking for the view/facts/whatever differing from what we still teach our children in the K-12 system. What we teach in K-12 could be considered propaganda, but then again, not too many of those students even pay attention anyway, so who can really judge the effectiveness of that propaganda at this point.
It is a fun subject, but after reading it, you'll be pretty pissed about having been mislead through the education you received in your earlier years. I know I sure was. Even more so that my ancestors fought on the Revolutionary side and judging from history, they were duped into it like most of the other commoners who fought.
"They threw tea overboard. This isn't terrorism, this is somewhere between performance art and anti-globalization protestor. I sincerely wish Hamas and Al Qaeda were throwing tea into harbors rather than blowing people up."
The Sons of Liberty were too terrorists. They burned taxation offices. They burned ships. They tarred and feathered people. Which isn't a humorous event. If not treated, the tar leads to the person suffocating and dying. Which did happen. The Sons lynched people. There's a famous case where they drowned a cobbler for uttering "God Save the King" in their presence. They sacked Gov. Thomas Hutchinson's house and threatened to slaughter him and his entire family. They didn't get to because the family was not present in the house at the time. The Sons also enforced boycotts of British goods amongst townsfolk and tried to stone people if they didn't comply.
That is terrorism, 18th Century style. Just because they weren't crazy enough in their convictions to strap themselves up with gunpowder and blow themselves up does not excuse their excesses.
Perhaps if Sam Adams had not been a failure as a businessman, we wouldn't be having such a heated discussion today. But the same could be said for if Hitler had only been a more successful painter.
"That is such a wonderful attitude. It adds a lot to the perception of America as the new bad guys."
No, its an attitude that is rooted in the fact that the United Nations is a spineless organization that allows dictatorships to belong to it and usurp legitimate interests of democratic regimes. Fascist states like China wish to manipute the U.N. to keep the U.S. from defending itself while the unscrupulous nation (such as China) will secretly advance its own agenda (the same type) without any cheques and balances that a democratic government would place upon it. There is a major parallel between the U.S./China relationship today and that of other powers from the late 19th Century, that being Great Britain and Germany. Germany ran up giant trade surpluses and channeled those monies into building up their military. Consequence? World War I.
The European Union can bury its head in the sand all it wants to with trying to appease China, but it is deluding itself into thinking that it will be treated equally if China becomes a dominant power.
"Anyway, I suspect that the rumors of US military invincibility have been greatly exaggerated, seeing how its army has been "stretched thin" after one small war in Iraq. Ready to take on China or India now? Right..."
Why would the U.S. take on India? Our relations with India have never been better. And yes, the U.S. could take on China today. Nuclear weapons and our bases in Japan and Korea give us quite an advantage.
One small war? Uhm, the U.S. has forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have forces in South Korea keeping the North in check. We have our Pacific fleet keeping the Chinese from invading Taiwan. And Special Forces are operating in many countries that the news does not report on. The U.S. military could beat any other standing army on the planet today. What you are talking about is terrorism and guerilla war tactics. Any occupying power suffers casualities from such incidents. That does not mean the military is stretched thin or ultimately will "lose." Don't be so damn smug.
"You need to watch A Day Without a Mexican. While essentially a comedy, this movie offers up many statistics about illegals and their (largely unrefunded) contributions to the state economy. Much of the surplus you cite is provided on their backs."
I do not discount how hard Mexicans work in our economy. But the point is, illegal immigration is illegal immigration. And if the Feds want to force us to provide their health care, then they better give us matching funs and not deny those requests because those very illegal aliens that they allowed to cross the border illegally do not have Social Security Numbers. The Feds short us at the very least $4 billion in providing health care to the illegal aliens, and they (the Feds) need to pay up. Although I will concede that unscrupulous ranchers benefit from the cheap labor and encurage the migration, and then dump the social responsibilities onto the taxpayer. Granted, we do have enough prisoners locked up that could equally be substituted to do the work that the "undocumented workers" currently provide.
As for the argument that California originally belonged to Mexico, I don't subscribe to that one bit. Mexico, and Spain before it, stole that land from the Natives. We then "conquerred" that very same land. So if we owe this land to anyone, it is the Native Tribes that still live here, and not Mexico. Besides, if we strip the Natives from the argument and go back to the European standards and claims for colonization, Spain squatted on this land because Sir Francis Drake claimed this land for the English Crown.
"the 13 colonies had the highest standard of living in the world at the time?"
At the time. That's when you compare the amount of land available, the average plot of land a family lived on, the sheer amount of food available (and cheaply), the goods available, and the low taxation (even when factoring in the "tyrannical" British taxes) level.
Of course, you must excuse the slaves and indentured servants from that equation.
Slashdot Mirror
Tune in the news and pay attention to the video images of Bernie Edwards going to jail for 25 years. Now, go down to your local "adult" store and buy some lube in preparation for your own date with justice.
"I don't know about working for them, but I do know that they had their bases covered when it came to having a browser for every platform."
Not Amiga. Not the ST/TT/Falcon. You had to be running Linux on those hardware choices to get Netscape. And I mean back in 96/97, not 2000.
"Heh, I got a 128k (2 channel) isdn connection when 14k4 modems where still the thing...
The throughput and latency of it were just mindboggling at the time..
Now that I think of it, there are probably quite a few places on the planet where that would still qualify as broadband."
That's what really made me mad about Pacific Bell (now SBC) here in California. In 1986, my Atari 1040ST supported ISDN natively. Did Pacific Bell deply residential service? No. It wasn't until after 1996 that they did half-heartedly, and by that time, the word on the street was "wait for cable modems or DSL." Pac Bell even tried to charge peak minutes usage on ISDN. And thus they were never successful in getting residential customers to move off 56K and onto ISDN. Its a shame they had such stupid management.
"The demand from Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo is a lot higher so IBM doesn't need to cry ;)"
Perhaps. Although the PS3 will probably be the only one of the three contracts that matter. And unless IBM has everything locked up, Sony could outsource the Cell contract to Toshiba.
Microsoft already has a guaranteed opt-out clause in their contract.
So this short term victory coupled with the loss of Apple as a major contract could turn around and bite IBM Microelectronics in a major way. Combine that with AMD having more manufacturing facilities and then IBM Microelectronics begins to look like Freescale.
"I'd like to see IBM make some inexpensive ($2000) PowerPC workstations (like the PowerMac G5). PowerPC seems to be a nice processor. Especialy if it has a decent OS behind it. If we could get some solid Linux support for a IBM PowerPC workstation, it would be able to do some nice video processing. Look at how good Apple did, even with a hacked (thrown together) OS."
Maybe now IBM will have an incentive to make such a beast a possibility now that they don't have to worry about offending Apple's sensibilities. That is probably why IBM never really got serious about making PPC the perfect Linux platform for the past several years.
"Or more accurately, the NRA won't compromise because the gun companys throw millions of dollars at politicians to protect their profits."
Well, as long as I don't commit a crime, I don't want to be told I can't purchase an AR-15. Thank you very much. It is quite the cure to a home invasion.
You have good points because at this time, I am at a loss of the number of proposed seats offered the Colonies at the time in the British Parliament, although in the grand scheme, probably no less as alotted to Scotland, Wales, or Ireland.
I will take issue with this point:
"Even after the progress of the past several decades towards devolution, the UK is still ultimately a unitary state, while, in spite of the trends of the Twentieth Century, the US has a federal nature. British Parliament combines the roles of both the US Congress and the (currently) 50 state legislatures. In many respects, it would be more proper to compare the number of MPs to the sum total of all state legislators in the US."
I disagree. Britain, through devolution, and rather quickly the past few years, is heading towards a *Federal Britain.* The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Irish Parliament. What is missing is a strictly English Parliament, and a Cornish Assembly.
There is also the possibility of Blair reforming the House of Lords further into a federal system.
As a fan of history, I am miffed that on principle, the hereditary peers were kicked out of the House of Lords. If a hereditary peer is found suitable, then that Lord should be seated. I don't find the peerage through that nature any more disrespectful than packing the House with a bunch of government stooges loyal to the particular Prime Minister of the time, as compared to voting them into office.
You also do not include the power of the town councils into your equation.
"No it isn't. It's a democratic organization, which means it's rather slow and decisions are consensus-based. Still, democracy is a good thing, no?"
How is it democratic? I didn't vote for my representative to the UN. Neither did you. If it were truly democratic, then the Chinese masses would vote for their representatives too. Oh, wait a sec. China isn't even a representative democracy. Taiwan is...but they aren't members of the UN.
"lol No it couldn't. You could lob missiles at them from the coast but you would have no army to occupy it with. Yes, you could cause much death and destruction, but you couldn't invade. Anyone who thinks differently is a moron. If we have learned anything from Iraq it is how indispensable ground forces are to a successful conclusion of a war. And by the way, China has nukes too, so you would probably not use yours."
Why would we want to invade China? The only logical American action against China would be to use nuclear weapons against it in order to prevent their invasion of Taiwan, or shoring up a North Korean assault on South Korea as they did in the Korean War. Nuking China would also prevent them from being such a commercial rival. Although that would definitely piss off Wal-Mart. Oh wait, that might be a good thing.
China too has nukes. But as long as their launchers were taken out, they could not hit the U.S. Yet another reason why our Administration pulled out of the ABM Treaty.
"It means that the American society is more sane than that which could sacrifice millions without consequence. But it is also a weakness in war. What some Americans need to understand is that the US doesn't need military superiority to be a great nation. In fact it might be a better one without it."
That's an admirable opinion, but unfortunately, one that is not realistic until the majority of the planet lives under democratic regimes.
If the U.S. does nothing, then who will stop Kim Jong Il? Nobody. The U.N. will stop him as much as the U.N. stopped Saddam Hussein. If the U.S. does not step up to China, then who will protect Taiwan? Definitely not the U.N. because Taiwan isn't even a member. If the U.S. does nothing against Al Quaeda, who will? Certainly not the French. And in 30 years time, if we do nothing, we'll be condemned in history for doing nothing, just as the return to American isolationism after WWI is widely condemned for allowing for the rise of Nazi Germany as well as Japan's aggression througout Asia. We still suffer the consequences of both inactions today.
It is unfortunate that Western cultural dominance (meaning the imposition of liberal democracy, tolerance, etc. and a forward-thinking culture that will lead us to the stars and this singular rock existence) of the entire planet must be carried out through American hegemony. Essentially 21st Century gunboat diplomacy.
"Okay, you admit to being a social liberal and then try to argue what I said was wrong. I simply CATEGORIZED the comment and you laid yourself into it."
A fiscal conservative/social liberal is still a political conservative. And more at home in the Republican Party - despite the actions of the so-called *Christian Coalition* - than in the Democratic Party. For examples, look at the current Governor of California, or Arizona Senator John McCain. We just don't care to argue over abortion, and we support stem cell research, as any thinking person should.
"Honestly, the whole point for me saying it was because he has such contempt for the country and its basis in existance. He obviously holds some sort of grudge. Personally, I could not stand to feel that way about the place I lived and would WANT to leave."
He? You mean "I". Don't address me directly and then refer to myself as "he." Yes, I love my country. I just don't like our educational system continuing to spread lies about its founding. We're all big enough to get past that and think about the future. The problem is, when the government spreads lies like that, when a person learns differently through education, it makes them cynical about everything, especially the political process. Very counter-productive. Although I'm sure the educated members of Roman society felt the same way about their pantheon of gods and all that. Probably knew it was bullshit but an effective means of keeping the general masses in check. You can take that as a critique on modern organized religion as well if you'd like.
"As for the rest of your post about how we'd be so hunky-doory (doorey? oh well) had we stayed in the British Empire, did you even think twice about how they were holding the core industrial pieces of the puzzle so they held all the cards? I love how YOU liberals feel that you are the only "educated" people on ANY subject you feel like talking about. I'll gladly start nitpicking if you want me too."
Britain became the big free-trading power of the 19th Century. Capital flows to wherever provides the best profit. British money from the industrial revolution flowed to the United States as industry matured in Britain. That fueled our own industrial rise in the 19th Century, as well as the rise of industrial Germany. British money paid for our railroads to be built. Had we stayed within the British Empire, that would not have changed. Crack open a university level history book, it might do you some good.
"Washington was great for many reasons."
Does that include going around and buying up the worthless Continental Congress War debt from the common folk? The Congress defaulted on the debt so it was worthless paper, just as the German currency became during the Weimar Republic. Washington went around and bought that debt up, literally "pennies on the dollar." He then had the Continental Congress honor the debt that he bought up cheaply, and made a very big profit off of it.
Yep, that was pretty great. And honorable too. Not.
"yes there are several differences. 1. We can't buy handguns of any kind and are limited in the kinds of rifles and shotguns that we can aquire. (clip size is severely limited and no semi or fully auto weapons of any kind) 2. You must have the fire-arm registered and have a hunting license to use the gun. 3. You must take a series of safety courses in order to get your lisence. 4. You can not store a loaded gun. Guns must locked away properly and seperately from ammo. 5. You cannot carry a firearm of any kind on your person. It must be stored unloaded while in transit. 6. You can't buy guns at fucking corner stores and quickie marts. Only at specific lisenced locations."
In truth, that's not much different than most States. California has some pretty tough gun-control laws as well.
There does need to be a compromise, but the NRA won't compromise because they see that as a "slippery slope" towards an inevitable outlawing of all guns, which is the goal of some of the liberal extremists. They quickly cite how gun-control has proceeded similarly in England and Australia. I seem to recall that in England, their Olympic rifle*men* have to train outside of the country now, thanks to their rather-excessive laws.
"and since im skeptical and youre claiming facts that you say none of us learned in our general education, could you cite some sources so at least *I* could look them up and know the truth?"
:)
Forgot to mention the so-called *Boston Massacre.* Especially the trial and the acquittal.
Don't forget the "Sons of Liberty" and read about their *exploits* in the context of the 18th century. And then discuss in your mind whether they were terrorists or not.
There are also other figures to check out. Like Tom Paine, and how he returned to England after the Revolution, yet the King never had him executed (although the French tried to once their revolution got out of hand). Or how Charles Lee once cussed out the King directly to him, and then jockeyed through his allies in the Continental Congress to depose George Washington's command. Yet despite leading forces against the King's army, Charles Lee was never threatened with execution when he returned to England either. Now compare that with how the United States federal government treated the so-called "Loyalists" (or Tories) after the end of the war. The government confiscated their property and they essentially were forced to settle in Canada. And then, despite promises to pay for those confiscations as guaranteed in the Treaty of Paris, to this day, the Federal Government has not paid off the descendants of those forgotten Americans.
The subject will then lead you to the War of 1812. The rematch of sorts that almost led to the United States being conquerred by the British. How the White House was burnt (and a freak storm saved it) by a Canadian regiment of the British Army as payback for Americans burning down a parliamentry building in Canada a year earlier (I believe it was in York if I recall). You'll also see how had the British won the War of 1812, there'd be a sovereign Native American nation on the Great Plains today, as well as reading about the man who Union General (of the Civil War) Sherman was named after (in terms of his middle name).
Very interesting stuff. But brace yourself. You might get as mad as Sean Connery in "Zardoz."
"radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today)" Hmmm did the Son's of Liberty bomb theater houses? Did they blow up shoppers at the market? Did they slaughter repair men. Did they intentianally murder as many ordinary working people as they could?"
I just remembered something else the Sons of Liberty caused. The so-called "Boston Massacre." For a full year, the Sons of Liberty harassed the British troops. They threw rocks and snowballs, and that was the least they did. For a full year. And then an unruly crowd gets fired upon by those same troops, after a full year of harassment. And caused by the agitation of Samuel Adams who wanted to provoke such an incident to milk it for all it was worth, which he did.
It is also wise to remember that the Battle of Bunker Hill was also caused because the British forces had orders to arrest the radical/terrorist Samuel Adams. Think about that the next time you drink the beer named in his honor. Can you imagine in 200 years drinking a beer named after Osama bin Laden, if Islam retracts its prohibition on alcoholic drinks by then?
"Technically he's espousing the conservative view of the time, which was that the British government was in the right and the colonials were the whiny babies that wanted to be protected by the British Army but didn't want to pay for it or follow the rules."
Very true. Its also the side that holds up the best under historical scrutiny. Otherwise, I'd be much happier to claim the Founding Fathers were right in what they did. After all, that is the prevailing wisdom amongst the common folk of this country that even give one lick about the subject beyond the superficial blowing up of fireworks of July 4th. Seriously, if there was ever a successful attempt at reunification, its marking would still have to be on July 4th in order to pacify the Wal-Mart masses.
I cannot excuse the Founding Fathers in inviting their blood enemies (the French) into a civil war. That's a definite "no no," and it is wise to remember that King Charles I lost his head at the end of the English Civil War for trying to do the same thing.
The other funny thing to point out is the attitude of the British government at the time to the rebellion. I forget the official who said it, but it goes along something like this (and I paraphrase)... "why is it that we hear the cries for liberty from the colonials it comes from the drivers of the negroids?" That was in response to Patrick Henry's call for "give me liberty or death." Patrick Henry was a slaveowner.
"Washington personally intervened on the Iroquois' behalf in a land dispute with the state of New York in the late 1780's. There was a persistent tradition among the Iroquois that after his death he was consequently the only white man permitted to visit the Indian region of the afterlife! (Source: "League of the Iroquois" by Henry Louis Morgan, a pioneering work of ethnology written in the 1840's -- I just happened to be glancing through it the other day.)"
I will admit I am unfamiliar with that subject, but I'd be willing to bet it wasn't the half of the Iroquois Nation that had been sided with the British. You know, like Joseph Brandt's side...
"Yeah, well, Franklin was kind of a wild dude. Maybe not the best father, and it wouldn't surprise me if his son turned out in such a way that deserved to be left out of the will."
You mean like staying loyal to the government that your father made a decent living siding with for much of his professional life, and then turn traitor to? You mean like refusing to switch your allegience just because your own father switched because he thought the political winds were favoring the other side? And getting locked in jail for your beliefs. If you could do that to your own son, then I guess you could truthfully state that Franklin's son deserved to be left out of his will.
"sorry but that is a load of BS, I live in Canada and I never have to worry about being shot by a criminal because 99.99% of the time they are not going to have a gun. And the 0.01% chance that they DO have a gun, it came from your fucking country anyways."
Yet even the liberal Michael Moore showed in "Bowling for Columbine" that western Canadians were just as armed as Americans are, yet have a lower crime rate. Unless that was another inaccurate Moore-ism.
"It's liberal because it can be taken as anti-institution and it literally calls our Founding Fathers morons."
Nope. I am a fiscal conservative/social liberal who is strong on national defense. But yes, I do consider the Founding Fathers to be morons. They hurt the Empire to which they had prosperred from. In doing so, they aided the true enemy of the time, which was France. The alliance with France was so flawed, that the United States found itself fighting a naval war with France in 1800.
Had we stayed in the Empire, my speculation is that the American Civil War (actually its second Civil War since the Revolution was the first) would not have happened because slavery would've been abolished 30 years before - as it was in the Empire - and the slaveholders would have received monetary compensation. True, it would have meant sharecropping, but at least 500,000 + American men would not have lost their lives over a stupid war. Had the Colonies stayed in the Empire, the British Empire would have been even stronger than it later evolved into, probably so strong that Germany would never have even been crazy enough to start a war with which became World War I. Which means World War II would never have happened either.
And I can truly say the Founding Fathers were morons for two other points. The radicals screamed bloody murder at the British over the Imperial trade system and its supposed unfairness. The Colonials wanted to trade with the rest of the world without any oversight by the British. So after Independence, they got their wish. The British then locked the United States out of the Imperial trade. This caused a massive recession/depression in the independent United States. The repurcussion of this? Look up "Shay's Rebellion." Oh yeah, the new States also jacked up the tax rates 15 times what they had been under Colonial times, even when including those "tyrannical" British taxes. Yeah, that's pretty moronic if you ask me.
"Generally, conservatives are not going to come out and say that. Honestly, the "Liberal poster" should probably not be living in the US because he quite obviously detests the country and even more so, its founding."
Typical moronic response. Criticize the system under the free society we live in, and abruptly told by someone uneducated on the subject to leave the country. Interesting to note, the Loyalists were kicked out of the country after the Revolutionary War because dissent was not tolerated. The first monies collected by the States and the Federal government were monies generated by the auction of the seized property of the Loyalists. They owned most of New York. And despite the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, the Federal Government never paid off the Loyalists, whose descendents live in Ontario, Canada. They have a lawsuit against the Feds over this. Its also the reason why English Canada is still not part of the U.S.
I love my country, but I am big enough to admit that its founding was based upon bullshit. We could've turned out even greater than what we did had we stayed a part of the Empire.
"Modern liberal. Not to mention conservatives believe in bearing arms et al, while liberals do not (even if they go hunting every now and then...)."
I like guns. Although hunting people is more of a sport than hunting animals who do not have weapons that can fire back. I think Jesse Ventura said much of the same thing.
"Funny that you whole heartedly ignore any wrongdoing on the brits side. A few things that should be noted which play into why "Radicals" burned a british naval vessel. The british navy had a bad habit of forcing people against there will into service through abduction and once out to see threatening death if they refused to cooperate."
Big deal. The British Navy empressed smugglers. Smuggling was the big industry of New England. So they empressed tea smugglers, and the very same smugglers who were involved with actively trading with the French (the enemy) during the Seven Years War. Cry me a river over violating the rights of criminals. Its not like the French didn't do the same thing (empressment) or any other European naval power at the time.
Our government has a long history of emptying the jails during wartime to feed the needs of the military. It was done in WWII, and extensively during Vietnam. Considering we have 2 million people locked up in prison today (although some of those numbers are distorted highly due to the stupid war on marijuana) and the military is experiencing a difficult time keeping troop numbers up, perhaps its time to empty the jails again.
"But hey, those "radicals" were evil and not reacting to a situation created by the british navy and gov't."
Yeah, like intimidating people into boycotting British goods, burning government property, sacking homes, drowning people, tarring and feathering them (leading to death), lynchings, etc. That's right...that's called "terrorism."
"It was, rather, Crown recognition of their *own* parliaments or assemblies and equivalents, and to be treated as a sovereign people, rather than as subjects of a distant Parliament."
A distant Parliament? Well, let's see here. Washington D.C. to Sacramento CA is very distant. About as equally distant as London to New York. So do you mean by your assertion that Washington D.C. does not have the authority to make law for California then, using your own argument? What about Hawai'i? My whole point is the various claims used to justify the Revolution do not hold up under scrutiny. They are infact, ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that Britain was considered the most "liberal" form of government at the time. If you want to talk about grieved citizens/subject, you should talk about the French at that time. They did have a right to a revolution in creating a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain's, but they went too far after it was proved the French King was a traitor.
The Crown, and its agent, Parliament, had every right to make law for the Empire. The Colonial Assemblies, in relation to Parliament, were similar in their scope as the modern State Assemblies are to the Federal Congress. Same argument.
"2) During the French and Indian Wars, the British (willfully or not, it depends on your cynicism) performed less than adequately in defending the frontiers of the colonies from the ravages of the Indians. But to make matters worse, the British actively forbade and punished the frontiers, especially in Pennsylvania, from raising arms and militias to protect themselves."
Funny that the criticism of the time had to do with the cowardice level of the colonial militias and not the ineffectiveness of the British Army and their Mohawk allies during the 7 Years War. That level of cowardice was also present during the Revolution. Washington, for example, hated the militias and the riflemen because they'd "pack up shop" at any moment and go home to plant crops instead of fight, or they'd run away when the battle started. After 1763, the British had no patience with Colonial squatters who tried to settle in the Native lands (which they were prohibited from doing so by the Proclamation of 1763) and directly cause a conflict with the Native tribes. Thus they brought it upon themselves.
"3) Then, to make matters even worse the British imposed the stamp and tea taxes on the colonies in order to finance the wars which had already ravaged the colonies... all with the patronizing air that the Americans should be thankful they were allowed to pay taxes."
The taxes were owed to pay off the debt incurred during the 7 Years War that mainly went to protecting the North American colonies from the French because the colonials proved they were unable to do the job themselves. Its not patronizing by the British, it was the ungratefulness of 1/5th of the Colonial public who chose to rebel against the King who had guaranteed their liberty.
"4) And Washington, while not a great general in the mold of Grant, Lee, or MacArthur, was certainly competent enough to wait for French assistance, given the staggeringly low resources he had at his disposal. Moreover, during the Seven Years War, it didn't matter how competent he was or what language he spoke, he was not going to rise beyond a certain point, because Spencer or not, he was a bloody colonist, and nothing more."
Bullshit. That's like arguing that Wellington should not have rose so highly in the British Army because he was Irish. Or Sir William Johnson, for that matter. What about Joseph Brandt? He was a Mohawk; a non-white. He became a British General. And he earned that rank. It wasn't a grant from the "big chief" in order to buy alliegence on the frontier. Had Washington proved himself in the field during the Seven Years War, learned French, and didn't sign a stupid surrender that placed all the blame on the war on the British side (because he couldn't read what he was signing...great legal deci
""radicals, members of the Sons of Liberty (who would be classified as terrorists today)" Hmmm did the Son's of Liberty bomb theater houses? Did they blow up shoppers at the market? Did they slaughter repair men. Did they intentianally murder as many ordinary working people as they could? Your accusation is wrong."
No, you are the one who is incorrect and does not know his history. Do a review of the "Sons of Liberty" and you will see for yourself that they intimidated people, lynched people, and destroyed government property. Just because suicide bombing had not been invented back then does not excuse them from being labelled as "terrorists," which they were. Drowning a man for saying "God Save the King" is terrorism. Tarring and feathering people, leading to their violent death in front of a large crowd is no worse than beheading innocent people on camera.
"Washington was great for many reasons. The colonial army followed him with great loyalty. He won many victories, he won against the British. You want a perfect war."
Read up on his conduct in the 7 Years War. He was a spiteful man, and nothing he did in the 7 Years War would lead him to be considered "great." And had the British not been fighting the French, the Dutch, and the Spanish all at the same time they were trying to put down a small rebellion in the Colonies, Washington would have been hanged for treason. He wouldn't have even been beheaded which was the *fitting* execution for royals and military leaders.
He could have ruled the country through the military, he didn't. He could have rulled the country through politics, winning election after election (there were no term limits on the presedency then), but he choose the leave after his second term which set such a strong precident that legal enforcement was not needed untill many years after Washington died.
Big deal. Julius Caesar refused a crown in Rome. Now there was a great military leader. If you want to pick an example of a great military leader born to the landed gentry, don't aim so low as Washington. Use Oliver Cromwell as an example. He too refused a crown. And he didn't make blunders in the field like Washington later did.
Had Washington been considered great, he wouldn't have had to fight being replaced by the Continental Congress. The Congress did try to replace him with Charles Lee.
Had Washington been truly great, there would've been a serious attempt to make him a King. There was a little talk about it, but King George III's son came close to being made the King of America. Noah Webster, the man who started "Webster's Dictionary" tried making the Prince of Wales the King of the United States, and he lost by 1 VOTE.
"You seem to think Washington was an inept man motivated by spite and a desire for creating his own Dynasty."
The facts speak for themselves. He couldn't speak French and when combined with his blunders in the 7 Years War kept him from getting the permanent commission in the British Army that he wanted and felt owed to him as a member of the gentry. He then *graciously* offered up his Command services to the Contiental Congress *first* fwith his own specially tailored uniform. He then spent the rest of the war trying to transform the Continental Army into the equal of the British Army, using the same tactics and extreme discipline. And as for his dynastic ambitions, he succeeded since so many people such as you parrot the idea that he graciously rejected power after his victory, when in truth, he was only aping what Caesar and Cromwell had done famously before him. Yes, his whole life showed nothing but the desire for ambition.
"and since im skeptical and youre claiming facts that you say none of us learned in our general education, could you cite some sources so at least *I* could look them up and know the truth?"
Well, I'll do even better. Ask for a syllabus of any lower and/or upper (preferred) division Colonial American/Revolutionary War class(es) offered at your nearest University. Probably can be found online on their website at this point in the 21st Century.
Here's an area to focus as to one of the main causes of the American Revolution: The Royal Proclamation of 1763. And what led to that Proclamation, the uprising of Pontiac. If you want to read about Washington's blunder(s) in the prior war, look under the historical subjects of "French and Indian War" (as it was known as in the Colonies and to this day in the U.S.) or "7 Years War." You should also look up "Sir William Johnson," and "Thomas Hutchinson." Other good figures to look up are "Joseph Brandt," the Mohawk and British General. The Mohawk tribe is also another good study too.
History books on the subject from American scholars started being published in the early 20th Century with a more rational review of the causes and consequences of the War. Earlier than that, it would be from British or European scholars if you are looking for the view/facts/whatever differing from what we still teach our children in the K-12 system. What we teach in K-12 could be considered propaganda, but then again, not too many of those students even pay attention anyway, so who can really judge the effectiveness of that propaganda at this point.
It is a fun subject, but after reading it, you'll be pretty pissed about having been mislead through the education you received in your earlier years. I know I sure was. Even more so that my ancestors fought on the Revolutionary side and judging from history, they were duped into it like most of the other commoners who fought.
"They threw tea overboard. This isn't terrorism, this is somewhere between performance art and anti-globalization protestor. I sincerely wish Hamas and Al Qaeda were throwing tea into harbors rather than blowing people up."
The Sons of Liberty were too terrorists. They burned taxation offices. They burned ships. They tarred and feathered people. Which isn't a humorous event. If not treated, the tar leads to the person suffocating and dying. Which did happen. The Sons lynched people. There's a famous case where they drowned a cobbler for uttering "God Save the King" in their presence. They sacked Gov. Thomas Hutchinson's house and threatened to slaughter him and his entire family. They didn't get to because the family was not present in the house at the time. The Sons also enforced boycotts of British goods amongst townsfolk and tried to stone people if they didn't comply.
That is terrorism, 18th Century style. Just because they weren't crazy enough in their convictions to strap themselves up with gunpowder and blow themselves up does not excuse their excesses.
Perhaps if Sam Adams had not been a failure as a businessman, we wouldn't be having such a heated discussion today. But the same could be said for if Hitler had only been a more successful painter.
"That is such a wonderful attitude. It adds a lot to the perception of America as the new bad guys."
No, its an attitude that is rooted in the fact that the United Nations is a spineless organization that allows dictatorships to belong to it and usurp legitimate interests of democratic regimes. Fascist states like China wish to manipute the U.N. to keep the U.S. from defending itself while the unscrupulous nation (such as China) will secretly advance its own agenda (the same type) without any cheques and balances that a democratic government would place upon it. There is a major parallel between the U.S./China relationship today and that of other powers from the late 19th Century, that being Great Britain and Germany. Germany ran up giant trade surpluses and channeled those monies into building up their military. Consequence? World War I.
The European Union can bury its head in the sand all it wants to with trying to appease China, but it is deluding itself into thinking that it will be treated equally if China becomes a dominant power.
"Anyway, I suspect that the rumors of US military invincibility have been greatly exaggerated, seeing how its army has been "stretched thin" after one small war in Iraq. Ready to take on China or India now? Right..."
Why would the U.S. take on India? Our relations with India have never been better. And yes, the U.S. could take on China today. Nuclear weapons and our bases in Japan and Korea give us quite an advantage.
One small war? Uhm, the U.S. has forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have forces in South Korea keeping the North in check. We have our Pacific fleet keeping the Chinese from invading Taiwan. And Special Forces are operating in many countries that the news does not report on. The U.S. military could beat any other standing army on the planet today. What you are talking about is terrorism and guerilla war tactics. Any occupying power suffers casualities from such incidents. That does not mean the military is stretched thin or ultimately will "lose." Don't be so damn smug.
"You need to watch A Day Without a Mexican. While essentially a comedy, this movie offers up many statistics about illegals and their (largely unrefunded) contributions to the state economy. Much of the surplus you cite is provided on their backs."
I do not discount how hard Mexicans work in our economy. But the point is, illegal immigration is illegal immigration. And if the Feds want to force us to provide their health care, then they better give us matching funs and not deny those requests because those very illegal aliens that they allowed to cross the border illegally do not have Social Security Numbers. The Feds short us at the very least $4 billion in providing health care to the illegal aliens, and they (the Feds) need to pay up. Although I will concede that unscrupulous ranchers benefit from the cheap labor and encurage the migration, and then dump the social responsibilities onto the taxpayer. Granted, we do have enough prisoners locked up that could equally be substituted to do the work that the "undocumented workers" currently provide.
As for the argument that California originally belonged to Mexico, I don't subscribe to that one bit. Mexico, and Spain before it, stole that land from the Natives. We then "conquerred" that very same land. So if we owe this land to anyone, it is the Native Tribes that still live here, and not Mexico. Besides, if we strip the Natives from the argument and go back to the European standards and claims for colonization, Spain squatted on this land because Sir Francis Drake claimed this land for the English Crown.
"the 13 colonies had the highest standard of living in the world at the time?"
At the time. That's when you compare the amount of land available, the average plot of land a family lived on, the sheer amount of food available (and cheaply), the goods available, and the low taxation (even when factoring in the "tyrannical" British taxes) level.
Of course, you must excuse the slaves and indentured servants from that equation.