A little nugget of knowledge regarding the United States.

[MasterNetra]

I'd just thought some maybe interest to know that the United States isn't technically a country but a Union of 50 smaller countries a.k.a states. ^.^ A little nugget of knowledge that seems to keep getting buried more and more as time goes.

[Paqman]

I believe the technical term is a federal republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic#List_of_federal_republics).

[MasterNetra]

I believe the technical term is a federal republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic#List_of_federal_republics).

A union none the less. And its "Constitutional Republic" according to your link ^.^

[supermelon928]

You know it's still often referred to as a union, right?

i.e.; "State of the Union address", when a state attempts to "leave the union", etc.

[scouser73]

I believe the technical term is a federal republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic#List_of_federal_republics).

It's classed as a Constitutional Republic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic#List_of_federal_republics

[supermelon928]

Also, it really doesn't matter. The U.S. identifies as a nation, which is not the same as being a state.

Regardless of history, functionally the overarching U.S.A. identity tends to mean more to people than their own state identity.

[Frak]

So are a lot of other countries?

[Shibblet]

Each State has the independent ability to make it's own laws governing the State, but not to supercede the laws mandated by the government.

Each state does not have an independent Armed Forces, that is the responsibility of the United States (country).

There are more US Territories than just the 50 States also. Such as...

American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands


So, the United States is a country, as well as a union of States.

[MasterNetra]

Also, it really doesn't matter. The U.S. identifies as a nation, which is not the same as being a state.

Regardless of history, functionally the overarching U.S.A. identity tends to mean more to people than their own state identity.

Does matter, states can ignore federal, though federal can withraw funds it gives to that states but meh. And the state can withdraw from the union. Granted I suppose the withdrawing states should have sufficent military force to defend themselves before doing so.


Each State has the independent ability to make it's own laws governing the State, but not to supercede the laws mandated by the government.

Each state does not have an independent Armed Forces, that is the responsibility of the United States (country).

There are more US Territories than just the 50 States also. Such as...

American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands


So, the United States is a country, as well as a union of States.

Well I know there is or at least was military divisions provided by states e.g. there is/was Michigan Cavalry divisions. Idk how that is now though. The reference to the united states as a country is still incorrect even if it is a common error.

[Paqman]

And its "Constitutional Republic" according to your link ^.^

Still a federal republic. In fact the US government itself (via the CIA factbook) lists the US as a "Constitution-based federal republic".

This is splitting hairs though, much like how some people annoyingly try to claim that you can't be a democracy if you're a republic. These terms aren't really set in stone, they just describe concepts.

So the US is a representative democracy, a liberal democracy, a federal republic, a constitutional republic, and probably about a dozen other appropriate terms.

[phrostbyte]

States are not legally allowed to have diplomacy with other countries, or a standing army. But you bring up something that is more interesting, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a nation/country. It's often defined as being recognized by the UN though, and if that is the case, the US is one nation.

[phrostbyte]

Does matter, states can ignore federal, though federal can withraw funds it gives to that states but meh. And the state can withdraw from the union. Granted I suppose the withdrawing states should have sufficent military force to defend themselves before doing so.

That's also kind of vague. The federal government often claims it has the final authority, while the states often clash with this idea (see Montana). Historically state law was much stronger, but this has changed over time, especially during times such as FDR's New Deal and the "living Constitution" idea.

[sliketymo]

Under God,With Liberty ,and Justice for all.

[jimi_hendrix]

Another random fact: the only state to be bombed during WWII was Oregon

[MasterNetra]

States are not legally allowed to have diplomacy with other countries, or a standing army. But you bring up something that is more interesting, there is no clear definition of what constitutes a nation/country. It's often defined as being recognized by the UN though, and if that is the case, the US is one nation.

The UN has no place in defining what is a country and what isn't. -.- Its a Union between countries/Unions....a Union of unions...don't that beat all!

[Paqman]

Another random fact: the only state to be bombed during WWII was Oregon

I think Hawaiians would view this as something of a technicality.

[MasterNetra]

i think hawaiians would view this as something of a technicality.

+1

[phrostbyte]

The UN has no place in defining what is a country and what isn't. -.- Its a Union between countries/Unions....a Union of unions...don't that beat all!

Then what constitutes a nation/country? It's really a difficult thing to define, and subjective in that nation Y will recognize nation Z as a nation, but nation W, does not recognize nation Z's existence. So it Z a nation or not?

[Paqman]

The UN has no place in defining what is a country and what isn't.

Diplomatic recognition has been the rubber stamp of nationhood since long before the UN existed.

[Frak]

Another random fact: the only state to be bombed during WWII was Oregon
Oklahoma, not Oregon. Tinker Air Force Base accidentally dropped a bomb on a town.

[jimi_hendrix]

I think Hawaiians would view this as something of a technicality.

I did not mean to belittle Pearl Harbor in any way. I just wanted to bring up a little bit of trivia.

[MasterNetra]

Then what constitutes a nation/country? It's really a difficult thing to define, and subjective in that nation Y will recognize nation Z as a nation, but nation W, does not recognize nation Z's existence. So it Z a nation or not?

Good point. Time to warm up the war machine I gonna have to protect my 1 acre country, we do a lot of importing. XD :p

[Paqman]

Another random fact: the only state to be bombed during WWII was Oregon

Actually I just looked it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_bomb), and the Japanese balloon bombs may have only caused casualties in one case (in Oregon), but they did turn up all over the place.


Japan released the first of these bomb-bearing balloons on November 3, 1944. They were found in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Michigan and Iowa, as well as Mexico and Canada.

EDIT: More interesting stuff from Wikipedia. Looks like there's a lot more to it than balloon bombs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_North_America_during_World_War_II

[Frak]

Boise City, Oklahoma


Boise City was the only city in the continental United States to be bombed during World War II. The bombing occurred on July 5, 1943, at approximately 12:30 a.m. by a B-17 Flying Fortress Bomber. This occurred because pilots performing target practice became disoriented and mistook the lights around the town square as their target. No one was killed in the attack (only practice bombs were used and the square was deserted at the time), but the pilots were embarrassed. For the 50th anniversary of the attack, the crew of the bomber was invited back to Boise City, but all members declined. The former radio operator did, however, send an audio tape that was played at the celebration.

[Shpongle]

im not sure how it would work being non american but could a state choose to opt out of the us , say if they voted so, not that it would happen but would it be possible under us law ?

[Frak]

im not sure how it would work being non american but could a state choose to opt out of the us , say if they voted so, not that it would happen but would it be possible under us law ?
They would use the Lincoln argument. The Government would ultimately send in troops to quell the resistance.

[jimi_hendrix]

Actually I just looked it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_bomb), and the Japanese balloon bombs may have only caused casualties in one case (in Oregon), but they did turn up all over the place.

Then my fact is wrong. I guess where I got it from only counted actual plane bombings as bombings. The Japanese tried to firebomb Oregon (and only Oregon) to light the forests in the West on fire.

[MasterNetra]

im not sure how it would work being non american but could a state choose to opt out of the us , say if they voted so, not that it would happen but would it be possible under us law ?

Its been done before. Apparently not without resistance from the Union. Most of the Southern states did. During the civil war many of the southern states broke from the union and formed the conferate union, they lost the war obviously and where reabsorbed. So yea, but you better have a kickass military before you do.

[Hwæt]

Does matter, states can ignore federal,

Incorrect, the supremacy clause of the constitution prohibits state laws from conflicting with federal laws. If there is a conflict, then the federal law holds true, while the state law is ignored. The constitution gives power to the president to enforce this clause with the army. Hence why the president is in the "executive branch" he executes the laws.



And the state can withdraw from the union.


Incorrect. We had an entire war over this. It's a common misconception that the Civil War was over slavery. While this was a large factor, the whole point of the war was to prove that the union was permanent and forever binding. The North won, so this held true, and still does.



Granted I suppose the withdrawing states should have sufficent military force to defend themselves before doing so.


That would be called a revolution. If states could actually leave the union, then we'd be a federation, rather than a federal republic. trying to break up the union today is considered treason, and is a highly punishable offense.



Well I know there is or at least was military divisions provided by states e.g. there is/was Michigan Cavalry divisions. Idk how that is now though. The reference to the united states as a country is still incorrect even if it is a common error.

The United States is one country. Originally, we were 13 countries bound together by a very weak union. After the constitution was drafted and superseded the Articles of Confederation, the states became provinces rather than states. However, the provinces were still referred to as states in slang. This is why "state" means country everywhere else in the world except for the United States.


Another misconception:

Texas can leave the union: false. Texas was only given the provision that it can split up into 5 smaller states, because it is such a huge land area with a dense population. Alaska was not given this provision due to its low population density.

[Paqman]

im not sure how it would work being non american but could a state choose to opt out of the us , say if they voted so, not that it would happen but would it be possible under us law ?

It's happened before, and wasn't pretty.

[Qola]

I'd just thought some maybe interest to know that the United States isn't technically a country but a Union of 50 smaller countries a.k.a states. ^.^ A little nugget of knowledge that seems to keep getting buried more and more as time goes.

Who cares?

[Groucho Marxist]

Regardless of history, functionally the overarching U.S.A. identity tends to mean more to people than their own state identity.

In terms of history, when people refer to the United States, they say "the United States is" in place of "the United States are." This subtle, yet important difference came about following the outcome of the American Civil War. Until that point, Americans, particularly Southerners, considered their ancestral homes within their respective states to take precedence over the nation as a whole.

[MasterNetra]

Who cares?

Apparently you if your posting instead of ignoring the thread.

[Paqman]

Then my fact is wrong.

It's an oft-repeated one though. I've seen a couple of documentaries that have said as much, and thought the same myself until I looked it up just now.

[wilee-nilee]

Anybody want to address the annihilated native population and the enslavement involved in the founding, this history has a estimated 20 million people of each group was involved.

[Qola]

Apparently you if your posting instead of ignoring the thread.

I posted because I wondered why you wasted your time making this thread...=P~

[supermelon928]

Another random fact: the only state to be bombed during WWII was Oregon

hey they tried to bomb CT too, but they couldn't get across the atlantic without dying.

[Frak]

Boise City, Oklahoma


Boise City was the only city in the continental United States to be bombed during World War II. The bombing occurred on July 5, 1943, at approximately 12:30 a.m. by a B-17 Flying Fortress Bomber. This occurred because pilots performing target practice became disoriented and mistook the lights around the town square as their target. No one was killed in the attack (only practice bombs were used and the square was deserted at the time), but the pilots were embarrassed. For the 50th anniversary of the attack, the crew of the bomber was invited back to Boise City, but all members declined. The former radio operator did, however, send an audio tape that was played at the celebration.


hey they tried to bomb CT too, but they couldn't get across the atlantic without dying.

Up above, look! It's a plane!

[MasterNetra]

Anybody want to address the annihilated native population and the enslavement involved in the founding, this history has a estimated 20 million people of each group was involved.

Aye its why I have no pride as a anerican dispite being born in it. Though this has nothing to do with this thread.

[supermelon928]

Anybody want to address the annihilated native population and the enslavement involved in the founding, this history has a estimated 20 million people of each group was involved.

Um, no, that really has nothing to do with any of this.

[Hwæt]

This topic is moving so fast that it looks like my mammoth post on the third page is being overlooked. :(

[Hwæt]

Anybody want to address the annihilated native population and the enslavement involved in the founding, this history has a estimated 20 million people of each group was involved.

It's called conquest, bud. Not one country has ever not been accused of displacing the native population in their new homeland.

Plus, the majority of Native Americans were killed by diseases brought over by the European settlers. Jeez, we've covered this in history class only 100 times.

[supermelon928]

This topic is moving so fast that it looks like my mammoth post on the third page is being overlooked. :(

I thought about asking you how it was a misconception that a state could leave the union if it's understood that no one can do it without a shitshow of military action, but I changed my mind.

And I was going to ask how it's a misconception that Texas can leave the union, just because, well, who the **** would actually think Texas has that right when no other state has?

[wilee-nilee]

Um, no, that really has nothing to do with any of this.

I would disagree, but that is my prerogative, this history is overlooked along with the anthropological discoveries of fully functioning societies predating this century by 8000 years, in what is now called the USA.

[MasterNetra]

This topic is moving so fast that it looks like my mammoth post on the third page is being overlooked. :(

Well regardless apparently if you have the sufficent military force you could break from the Union. Then again as history has shown you could break from a nation or takes its land if you have the ability to do so. :/

[supermelon928]

Not one country has ever not been accused of displacing the native population in their new homeland.


What about....Chad?

[alakazam]

Aye its why I have no pride as a anerican dispite being born in it. Though this has nothing to do with this thread.


If everyone thought like that then not a soul on earth would have any pride, virtually every nation have skeletons in their closet.

[MasterNetra]

What about....Chad?

Well they are evil too apparently.


If everyone thought like that then not a soul on earth would have any pride, virtually every nation have skeletons in their closet.

Well its not by far the only reason but it does minus from the pride.

[supermelon928]

I would disagree, but that is my prerogative, this history is overlooked along with the anthropological discoveries of fully functioning societies predating this century by 8000 years, in what is now called the USA.

I'm afraid your request to disagree is denied. The definitions of state, nation, country, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with who was killed in order that we could now live here.

[Hwæt]

I thought about asking you how it was a misconception that a state could leave the union if it's understood that no one can do it without a shitshow of military action, but I changed my mind.


MasterNetra was implying that you could just opt your way out without a show of force.



And I was going to ask how it's a misconception that Texas can leave the union, just because, well, who the **** would actually think Texas has that right when no other state has?

Have you never heard of Governor Rick Perry?



Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that...My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that.


A lot of people who do believe this believe it because Texas is one of the very few republics to actually surrender sovereignty over to the United States and become a province.

[Groucho Marxist]

im not sure how it would work being non american but could a state choose to opt out of the us , say if they voted so, not that it would happen but would it be possible under us law ?

If this happened again, as it did in 1860, the seceding states would also give up all rights to property and representation within the US. As such, two results would occur. The states would no longer be governable by US laws, and as such, the US government would need to exploit this unique legal situation in order to regain lost territory and property.

In school, students of American history are taught that Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" freed the slaves in 1863. The Proclamation did not, in fact, free the slaves; that would take the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution following the Civil War. What the proclamation did do, however, was allow the United States to assume control of property and lands within areas formerly under Confederate rule, as well as certain areas along the border between the North and South. Slaves were "freed" only because the United States assumed control of property (which was how slaves were viewed prior and during the war) formerly under Confederate control.

In the 21st century, the US government can not create laws to govern a sovereign nation (which the CSA was for roughly four years). So, using the Emancipation Proclamation as an illustration, the government would state something to the effect that areas formerly under _____ control would fall under US protection/jurisdiction/ control/etc. This would allow US occupation forces to begin the long road to reconstructing the Union, as well as create a context in which US law could govern an external power.

[wilee-nilee]

It's called conquest, bud. Not one country has ever not been accused of displacing the native population in their new homeland.

Plus, the majority of Native Americans were killed by diseases brought over by the European settlers. Jeez, we've covered this in history class only 100 times.

You are partially correct but the history you have been taught is a false one by and large. For example look at who was the writers of this history it is the group that was the conquerers.

A little college level history studies in specific departments like Black and Native American studies will give you a little more accurate dissertation.

[MasterNetra]

MasterNetra was implying that you could just opt your way out without a show of force.



Have you never heard of Governor Rick Perry?



A lot of people who do believe this believe it because Texas is one of the very few republics to actually surrender sovereignty over to the United States and become a province.

I wasn't implying a show of force wasn't nesscery granted though I was a bit vague.

[wilee-nilee]

I'm afraid your request to disagree is denied. The definitions of state, nation, country, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with who was killed in order that we could now live here.

My My how will I live with myself now. ;)

[supermelon928]

Have you never heard of Governor Rick Perry?


I have, and he's a good man. Regardless of how unsuccessful he will be, I fully support his efforts to secede.

[Paqman]

Well regardless apparently if you have the sufficent military force you could break from the Union. Then again as history has shown you could break from a nation or takes its land if you have the ability to do so. :/

Indeed. Geopolitics in general is based on the idea that the basis of all authority is power. If a state ever did have a military punch, economic clout and political will to successfully secede you'd find the much-vaunted constitution wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on.

[Hwæt]

You are partially correct but the history you have been taught is a false one by and large. For example look at who was the writers of this history it is the group that was the conquerers.

A little college level history studies in specific departments like Black and Native American studies will give you a little more accurate dissertation.

You do realize that you can't believe every story written by Native Americans, right? Nor can you believe every story written by the conquerers. If that was the case, all Native Americans would be savages, and all whites would be too.

It's old history. You don't hear the Celts complaining about how the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes took over their homeland, do you? Nor do you hear Israelites complaining about how the Romans took over theirs. What's in the past is in the past. However, we should learn from this past and create a new era of peace and love. There is no point to fighting over spilled milk.

discussion.end.now()

[MasterNetra]

My My how will I live with myself now. ;)

One hour at a time thats how I do it. :p

[supermelon928]

You are partially correct but the history you have been taught is a false one by and large. For example look at who was the writers of this history it is the group that was the conquerers.

A little college level history studies in specific departments like Black and Native American studies will give you a little more accurate dissertation.

Agreed. Just because grades k-12 taught us that it was diseases doesn't change the fact that there were also plenty of villages burned, women raped, religions repressed, and rights stolen.

[MasterNetra]

agreed. Just because grades k-12 taught us that it was diseases doesn't change the fact that there were also plenty of villages burned, women raped, religions repressed, and rights stolen.

+1

[supermelon928]

Nor do you hear Israelites complaining about how the Romans took over theirs.



Are you ******* kidding me?

[Frak]

Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the Alaskan Independence Party?

[supermelon928]

Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the Alaskan Independence Party?

I guess there was no reason to bring it up since sarah palin had no chance of winning the election anyway

[MasterNetra]

Why doesn't anybody ever talk about the Alaskan Independence Party?

There's a Alaskan Independence party? And I'd imagine it's because no one really talks about alaska that much. No offense to alaskians I just don't hear it talked about that much.

[Frak]

There's a Alaskan Independence party? And I'd imagine it's because no one really talks about alaska that much. No offense to alaskians I just don't hear it talked about that much.
Heh

"Alaska seceded, rally the troops! We must bring them back to the union!"

Response:
"Get the oil, screw the state"

[wilee-nilee]

You do realize that you can't believe every story written by Native Americans, right? Nor can you believe every story written by the conquerers. If that was the case, all Native Americans would be savages, and all whites would be too.

It's old history. You don't hear the Celts complaining about how the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes took over their homeland, do you? Nor do you hear Israelites complaining about how the Romans took over theirs. What's in the past is in the past. However, we should learn from this past and create a new era of peace and love. There is no point to fighting over spilled milk.

discussion.end.now()

Your argument is weak and complacent to the aftermath of the founding of the USA. Sorry man I just tend to take the information presented by Professors more serious then some person on a forum who is obviously very young and misinformed.

[Hwæt]

Agreed. Just because grades k-12 taught us that it was diseases doesn't change the fact that there were also plenty of villages burned, women raped, religions repressed, and rights stolen.

I am aware that this happened, and K-12 do not teach that only diseases did it. Diseases did kill the vast majority of them. Have you not read about the fall of great civilizations such as Tenochtitlan? By the time the Spanish were ready to invade, disease had already killed the majority of the people in the city.


Are you ******* kidding me?

No, my point is that it happened over 100 years ago. Sure it was horrible what we did, but it's old news. We should forgive, forget, and move on. Holding a grudge helps no one.

[supermelon928]

I'm just gonna throw this out there.

New England could and should be its own country.

http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/91453528/7205173

(ETA) Oh, and so should Alaska, Texas, Utah, and the CFA.

[Paqman]

Agreed. Just because grades k-12 taught us that it was diseases doesn't change the fact that there were also plenty of villages burned, women raped, religions repressed, and rights stolen.

Historically disease was by far the biggest killer of the indigenous people in both South and North America after contact with the Europeans. Smallpox ripped though the Incans and Aztecs and killed millions.

Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond is a good book that discusses how and why so few Europeans took down these massive New World civilisations so quickly. It's a bit of a dense read, but really interesting.

[Hwæt]

Response:
"Get the oil, screw the state"

Wasn't that also our response to Iraq? :P

[MasterNetra]

I'm just gonna throw this out there.

New England could and should be its own country.

http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/91453528/7205173

Yes! Boston Tea party all over again but this time with beer.....ok the beer part probably won't fly... who dumps good beer into a harbor?

[Groucho Marxist]

Agreed. Just because grades k-12 taught us that it was diseases doesn't change the fact that there were also plenty of villages burned, women raped, religions repressed, and rights stolen.

These events, as horrific as they are, are not uniquely American or European. Humanity's evils stretch across the globe to the point where groups that were once oppressed become today's oppressors.

[Hwæt]

Yes! Boston Tea party all over again but this time with beer.....ok the beer part probably won't fly... who dumps good beer into a harbor?

Who said it had to be good beer?

[supermelon928]

These events, as horrific as they are, are not uniquely American or European. Humanity's evils stretch across the globe to the point where groups that were once oppressed become today's oppressors.

Yes, thank you, I'm aware.

[Hwæt]

Your argument is weak and complacent to the aftermath of the founding of the USA. Sorry man I just tend to take the information presented by Professors more serious then some person on a forum who is obviously very young and misinformed.

Your professors show you those various articles because they expect you as a college student to know how to differentiate true from false, reality from hyperbole, and bias from actual events. Obviously, you aren't getting the point of the whole curriculum.

[MasterNetra]

Who said it had to be good beer?

Oh yea! good point. But then again a statement needs to be sent so...laywers and bankers instead of tea...or laywers and bankers while they drink tea? For the sake of sticking to the name.

[Frak]

Wasn't that also our response to Iraq? :P
Good catch.

[Hwæt]

Yes, thank you, I'm aware.

Then how come whenever I gave you examples of other conquered territories, you still kept on like the Native Americans were the only people in the world who were ever oppressed?

[supermelon928]

Yes! Boston Tea party all over again but this time with beer

All we have to do is find a tea manufacturer who wants to eliminate the competition of beer imports from england.

[Revolutionary101]

I'm just gonna throw this out there.

New England could and should be its own country.

http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/91453528/7205173

(ETA) Oh, and so should Alaska, Texas, Utah, and the CFA.

If all these states became their own country many things would be different. Think of how much more difficult trade and commerce would be between these new countries. Also the U.S.A would lose its influence as a global super power. In the end through division we are weak but when united we are strong. If that is true why would you support division at all?

[supermelon928]

Then how come whenever I gave you examples of other conquered territories, you still kept on like the Native Americans were the only people in the world who were ever oppressed?

I wasn't really arguing against there being other examples of oppression, I was arguing against there not being other examples of the Native Americans being killed other than disease.

Unless you're talking about my response to the thing about Israel and Rome, in which case I was only trying to say that Israel bitched so hard they go their land handed back to them.

[MasterNetra]

Your professors show you those various articles because they expect you as a college student to know how to differentiate true from false, reality from hyperbole, and bias from actual events. Obviously, you aren't getting the point of the whole curriculum.

+1 for point.

Learn the story from both sides and assume the truth is in between. Follow that up by looking at the evidence to help you reach the truth.

[supermelon928]

If all these states became their own country many things would be different. Think of how much more difficult trade and commerce would be between these new countries. Also the U.S.A would lose its influence as a global super power. In the end through division we are weak but when united we are strong. If that is true why would you support division at all?

Ahahaha.

Any country can be strong regardless of its size. Look at Israel.

And I don't really give a **** how difficult it would make things, because those difficulties would be temporary.

You don't really think the U.S.A. is going to be around forever, do you? ;)

[Revolutionary101]

Ahahaha.

Any country can be strong regardless of its size. Look at Israel.

And I don't really give a **** how difficult it would make things, because those difficulties would be temporary.

You don't really think the U.S.A. is going to be around forever, do you? ;)

No I don't, nothing lasts forever. I know eventually the United States will come to an end, but why speed up the process? If people always wanted to make countries divide then how would we make any progress? Plus Israel isn't that strong it just has powerful friends.

[Groucho Marxist]

Your professors show you those various articles because they expect you as a college student to know how to differentiate true from false, reality from hyperbole, and bias from actual events. Obviously, you aren't getting the point of the whole curriculum.

Furthermore, the idea that professors and their findings are infallible is a fallacy in and of itself.


Yes, thank you, I'm aware.

Pardon me, my name is Spaulding, Captain Jeffery T. Spaulding.

[sliketymo]

Sarah can see Russia from her house,you betcha.

[MasterNetra]

No I don't, nothing lasts forever. I know eventually the United States will come to an end, but why speed up the process? If people always wanted to make countries divide then how would we make any progress? Plus Israel isn't that strong it just has powerful friends.

Speed it up? Seems that is being done by those in charge already.

[supermelon928]

If people always wanted to make countries divide then how would we make any progress?

Progress toward what, a world government? Yeah, that's a great idea.

There will always be conflict. There will never be world peace.

Myself, all I want is for everyone in their country to at least be able to afford traveling to their capital, and ideally, be a fish in a small enough pond that someone will give a **** what they have to say.

[Revolutionary101]

Speed it up? Seems that is being done by those in charge already.

How is that being done?

[MasterNetra]

How is that being done?

Getting into details would be getting into poltics and thats a no no here. Or at least would dive into in a way that is a no no.

[Paqman]

If people always wanted to make countries divide then how would we make any progress?

There's a lot more countries now than there were 20 years ago. Nationalism is on the rise after the relatively artificial homogenised states of the Cold War era. Germany being the obvious exception, but in their case it was the division that was artificial.

[supermelon928]

For someone with the username "Revolutionary101", you sure do enjoy the status quo.

[Revolutionary101]

Progress toward what, a world government? Yeah, that's a great idea.

There will always be conflict. There will never be world peace.

Myself, all I want is for everyone in their country to at least be able to afford traveling to their capital, and ideally, be a fish in a small enough pond that someone will give a **** what they have to say.

If you wanted to have a "pond" that was small enough to where you will have a say, you would have to have countries as small as counties. There would also be constant war if we did that. If you want a say maybe you should vote for people to represent you that share your beliefs.

[Hwæt]

I wasn't really arguing against there being other examples of oppression, I was arguing against there not being other examples of the Native Americans being killed other than disease.

I never said that just disease killed them. I said that it was the biggest killer. Although, I can see how you may have thought that I said that. Some of my posts weren't exactly the clearest. :P



Unless you're talking about my response to the thing about Israel and Rome, in which case I was only trying to say that Israel bitched so hard they go their land handed back to them.

I was talking about today. Hence "Old News"


Any country can be strong regardless of its size. Look at Israel.

Really, it comes down to population and strategy, not geopolitical area. You are correct here.

[Revolutionary101]

For someone with the username "Revolutionary101", you sure do enjoy the status quo.

Haha yeah I only support a revolution when a serious crime has been committed and people have been wronged or killed. I don't support revolutions that you people claim just because you complain about not having enough say or not being able to go to the nation's capital.

[supermelon928]

If you wanted to have a "pond" that was small enough to where you will have a say, you would have to have countries as small as counties. There would also be constant war if we did that. If you want a say maybe you should vote for people to represent you that share your beliefs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/supermelon928/1261491193985.jpg

will do.

[supermelon928]

just because you complain about not having enough say or not being able to go to the nation's capital.

I never said I was complaining, I use the clever strategy of not caring about anything.

[Hwæt]

I never said I was complaining, I use the clever strategy of not caring about anything.

Then why are you still participating in this debate?

[Revolutionary101]

will do.

If you are not satisfied with the people running then maybe you should run for public office and try to make a difference.

[MasterNetra]

Progress toward what, a world government? Yeah, that's a great idea.

There will always be conflict. There will never be world peace.

Myself, all I want is for everyone in their country to at least be able to afford traveling to their capital, and ideally, be a fish in a small enough pond that someone will give a **** what they have to say.

A United world isn't nesscerly a bad thing, the world being completely ran as unions and countries such as the USA is being ran is the problem. The corruption, and egoistical nature of the "rulers" would no doubt lead to the world dividing again. A global society based on any of the major societies today would end in failure. We need to create a new one that removes positions of "power" completely. As History has painfully demostrated time and time again that man in general cannot handle power. Sure you may get a few good leaders now and again but it takes only one bad one to create a living h***.

[Revolutionary101]

Then why are you still participating in this debate?

Great point.

[supermelon928]

Then why are you still participating in this debate?

Allow me to correct myself, I don't care about anything as much as I care about the United States being dissolved. And that's not something worth going to your representatives about.

Anything else I have a problem with is either being taken care of over time or is already taken care of.

[Groucho Marxist]

Then why are you still participating in this debate?

+1

Such is the hilarious paradox of apathy :D

As my sister would say, "Apathy is not caring whether or not people know you don't care."

[Hwæt]

Allow me to correct myself, I don't care about anything as much as I care about the United States being dissolved. And that's not something worth going to your representatives about.

Anything else I have a problem with is either being taken care of over time or is already taken care of.

If you want anarchy, go to Somalia. Just look at how wonderful that turned out.

[alphaniner]

Incorrect, the supremacy clause of the constitution prohibits state laws from conflicting with federal laws.

That is an incredibly shallow interpretation of the 'supremacy clause'. Do your research before posting in such broad strokes.


...If that is true why would you support division at all?

Secession and nullification were once very real considerations. There is nothing so outlandish about these concepts. Consent of the governed requires the possibility of refusing governance. Otherwise, consent is an illusion. But don't get to thinking they were intended to be bandied about lightly.

Unfortunately, the Civil War put an end to these concepts, and along with it's aftermath states' rights got a very bad name. Somewhat understandable, I suppose, but most unfortunate.


If you want anarchy, go to Somalia. Just look at how wonderful that turned out.

There was a brief period in which Somalia made some significant progress, when the rest of the world wasn't 'helping' them.

[Hwæt]

That is an incredibly shallow interpretation of the 'supremacy clause'. Do your research before posting in such broad strokes.


You're joking, right?



This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


For being written in the 1700s, that's pretty damn clear English.

[Sef]

This thread is getting political and that is the reason this thread is now locked.