Would people move to Texas if it were an independent nation? (Ranger: camping, live in)

[denison]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

We are not an empire by definition, though.

"The United States has had its imperial moments, whether it was called an 'empire' or not. The Monroe Doctrine, gunboat diplomacy, the longstanding support and installation of regimes favorable to us (think 'banana republics')....I'm not making a value judgement, but those were imperial in thought if not in name. It's come back to bite us in the backside more than once, too. We didn't come along early enough to be imperial like Great Britain was. But the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars? Imperialism personified. It's simply the way the world was."-Quoted for truth
http://www.city-data.com/forum/8505712-post29.html

America is an empire, because it's actions are imperial.

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

And the United States is the most successful political experiment in history.

Not even close. You also display another trait of an imperial system, "delusions of grandeur". "We're the best, the great thing the world has ever known" and all that other chest beating nonsense. You would need to back it up with actual evidence by comparing America to every other historical empire. You can start with these:

Roman Empire: 27 BC- AD 476 (502 yrs)
Ottoman Empire: 1299-1922 (623 yrs)
Abbasid Empire: 750-1517 (767 yrs)
Assyrian Empire: 1920 BC-609 BC (1,311 yrs)
United States of America 1776- Present (233 yrs).

[getmeoutofhere]

There is a difference between "empire" and "imperial". We are not an empire, we do not have an emperor. We are centrally located, we have no widespread colonies.

The United States is a republic.




And yes, the United States is the most successful political experiment in history. It's not held together by constant force and violence, instead by shared ideals and politics. No one is forced to stay, nor to participate.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

There is a difference between "empire" and "imperial". We are not an empire, we do not have an emperor. We are centrally located, we have no widespread colonies.

Well, we have plenty of foreign vassals, like Iraq and Afghanistan, and somewhat friendlier ones such as South Korea and Japan. As to whether we have an emperor, he's looking more and more unclothed every day.

The United States is a republic.

Unless you're a Republican senator or congressman. If so, you have no voice in the current political struggles over cap-and-trade or health care. If it were really a republic, the congressmen would actually read the bills they vote on. And when they face citizens angry about changes to their health insurance, they would listen to them, not describe them as "the great right-wing conspiracy".

And yes, the United States is the most successful political experiment in history. It's not held together by constant force and violence, instead by shared ideals and politics. No one is forced to stay, nor to participate.

Weren't you the one who said that the possibility of secession had been eliminated due to a war of force and violence? Also, some say that Texas is in fact being forced to stay by a bullying Washington government, at least in this current hypothetical scenario.

Also, I don't see too much "shared ideals and politics" between the Red and Blue states. We cannot even agree as to whether a citizen has a right to own a gun.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Well, we have plenty of foreign vassals, like Iraq and Afghanistan, and somewhat friendlier ones such as South Korea and Japan. As to whether we have an emperor, he's looking more and more unclothed every day.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not our "vassals". Nor are Japan or South Korea. They are independent, albeit friendly, nations.

Originally Posted by aceplace

Unless you're a Republican senator or congressman. If so, you have no voice in the current political struggles over cap-and-trade or health care.

Our government is the very definition of a Republic.

re⋅pub⋅lic

  /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA –noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

Originally Posted by aceplace

Weren't you the one who said that the possibility of secession had been eliminated due to a war of force and violence? Also, some say that Texas is in fact being forced to stay by a bullying Washington government, at least in this current hypothetical scenario.

I said the issue had been settled by the Civil War, once and for all. It is not an ongoing issue, except apparently with the the governor and citizens of the "great state of Texas".

[denison]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

There is a difference between "empire" and "imperial". We are not an empire, we do not have an emperor. We are centrally located, we have no widespread colonies.

America is an empire, it does not need to have an emperor.

There are any number of books written by CIA types who admit to intervening in foreign elections, starting riots in foreign nations, flooding foreign countries with bogus money to destroy that countries currency, empires are not always going to look the same throughout our history, but the end result usually remains the same.-Quoted for truth
http://www.city-data.com/forum/9441688-post16.html

The United States is a republic.

I am well aware that America used to be a republic. We don't act like anymore. You ever listen to these politicians. They think we live in a democracy. And that is how they act. So even though the constitution promises the the states a republican form of govt they don't deliver. And we keep voting the same people to represent themselves in D.C. Apparently, people in the U.S. want to live in a democracy not a republic.

Even though we say we are a republic we have become a democracy. Too bad. As the founding fathers said democracies were the worst type of tyranny. And democracies tend to die violent deaths.

And yes, the United States is the most successful political experiment in history.

Really, a failed economy on the verge of collapse i.e. the bailout. Rampant unchecked illegal immigration, do to needs for extremely cheap labor(modern day slavery). Police brutality, political corruption, millions homeless, over a 11 trillion in debt. Not what I would consider successful.

It's not held together by constant force and violence, instead by shared ideals and politics. No one is forced to stay, nor to participate.

Uh... Have you ever heard of the "Civil War"? Plenty of people on this very thread don't want to let Texas leave peacefully, some are advocating using force and violence to make them stay. What you said is an outright lie.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Iraq and Afghanistan are not our "vassals". Nor are Japan or South Korea. They are independent, albeit friendly, nations.

Our government is the very definition of a Republic.

re⋅pub⋅lic

  /rɪˈpʌblɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA –noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

I said the issue had been settled by the Civil War, once and for all. It is not an ongoing issue, except apparently with the the governor and citizens of the "great state of Texas".

The countries I mentioned are militarily dependent for their security on the United States military, and thus are not independent. An empire is composed of several nations militarily dependent on an imperial power.

The supposed "sovereignty" of the voters has been eliminated by gerrymandering that protects incumbents and makes them immune to voter dissatisfaction. The body of voters have effectively lost their powers to punish incumbents, except in the most extreme of circumstances, and no longer function as holders of supreme power. That's why congressmen worry more about what the House Speaker wants, and very little about what the people want. The USA is a republic in the sense that Iran is a republic.

It's true we don't have an ongoing civil war, but if the issue had been settled once and for all by the 1861 Civil War, then that war is still in effect, in terms of intimidating and coercing states to submit to Washington. That's why the losers of that Civil War still have to prove they're not denying election rights to African-Americans.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by denison

America is an empire, it does not need to have an emperor.

There are any number of books written by CIA types who admit to intervening in foreign elections, starting riots in foreign nations, flooding foreign countries with bogus money to destroy that countries currency, empires are not always going to look the same throughout our history, but the end result usually remains the same.-Quoted for truth
http://www.city-data.com/forum/9441688-post16.html



I am well aware that America used to be a republic. We don't act like anymore. You ever listen to these politicians. They think we live in a democracy. And that is how they act. So even though the constitution promises the the states a republican form of govt they don't deliver. And we keep voting the same people to represent themselves in D.C. Apparently, people in the U.S. want to live in a democracy not a republic.

Even though we say we are a republic we have become a democracy. Too bad. As the founding fathers said democracies were the worst type of tyranny. And democracies tend to die violent deaths.


Really, a failed economy on the verge of collapse i.e. the bailout. Rampant unchecked illegal immigration, do to needs for extremely cheap labor(modern day slavery). Police brutality, political corruption, millions homeless, over a 11 trillion in debt. Not what I would consider successful.

Uh... Have you ever heard of the "Civil War"? Plenty of people on this very thread don't want to let Texas leave peacefully, some are advocating using force and violence to make them stay. What you said is an outright lie.

Call me when you get off the crazy train.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The countries I mentioned are militarily dependent for their security on the United States military, and thus are not independent. An empire is composed of several nations militarily dependent on an imperial power.

No, an empire is composed of a nation with satellite colonies that are considered part of that nation. They also have an emperor, not a duly elected president.

Originally Posted by aceplace

The supposed "sovereignty" of the voters has been eliminated by gerrymandering that protects incumbents and makes them immune to voter dissatisfaction. The body of voters have effectively lost their powers to punish incumbents, except in the most extreme of circumstances, and no longer function as holders of supreme power. That's why congressmen worry more about what the House Speaker wants, and very little about what the people want. The USA is a republic in the sense that Iran is a republic.

That's opinion on your part. If you are dissatisfied with the current elected people, then why don't you run?


The fact is that the Untied States is a Republic in that voters elect representatives to the governing body.

Originally Posted by aceplace

It's true we don't have an ongoing civil war, but if the issue had been settled once and for all by the 1861 Civil War, then that war is still in effect, in terms of intimidating and coercing states to submit to Washington. That's why the losers of that Civil War still have to prove they're not denying election rights to African-Americans.

No one is intimidating the states to stay. In fact, I believe if the same situation were to happen, the states would be successful with secession. But that wouldn't happen, except in fantasy land.

States submit to Washington because that is where the ultimate authority lies on a great many issues. Do they overstep their bounds occasionally? Yep. But this is the system we've given ourselves, and you can't have all the individual states trying to run everything. There has to be someone in charge, unequivocally.

And the losers still have to show proof because many of those laws are still on the books, and because black people still aren't treated equally, even 140 years later.

[denison]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Call me when you get off the crazy train.

Can you answer my post instead of trying to ignore my argument. It only makes you looks ignorant.

You said america isn't held together by force.

It's not held together by constant force and violence, instead by shared ideals and politics. No one is forced to stay, nor to participate.

Uh... Have you ever heard of the "Civil War"? Plenty of people on this very thread don't want to let Texas leave peacefully, some are advocating using force and violence to make them stay. What you said is an outright lie.

And yes, the United States is the most successful political experiment in history

Really, a failed economy on the verge of collapse i.e. the bailout. Rampant unchecked illegal immigration, do to needs for extremely cheap labor(modern day slavery). Police brutality, political corruption, millions homeless, over a 11 trillion in debt. Not what I would consider successful.

If you can't answer those arguments, it just proves what you said is completely false. End of conversation.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by denison

Can you answer my post instead of trying to ignore my argument. It only makes you looks ignorant.

I would slow down on the calling people ignorant after this mess of a post.

Originally Posted by denison

America is an empire, it does not need to have an emperor.

There are any number of books written by CIA types who admit to intervening in foreign elections, starting riots in foreign nations, flooding foreign countries with bogus money to destroy that countries currency, empires are not always going to look the same throughout our history, but the end result usually remains the same.-Quoted for truth
http://www.city-data.com/forum/9441688-post16.html

Actually, in order to be an empire, it does need an emperor. It's a bit of requirement.

Also, clandestine operations on foreign soil don't make a nation an empire, they make it, well, a functioning nation. Not a thing listed in that post constitutes a basis for an empire.

And when the basis for your argument is quoting other people on a message board, you might need to take a step back. That's not proof or even support, that's his opinion.

Originally Posted by denison

I am well aware that America used to be a republic. We don't act like anymore. You ever listen to these politicians. They think we live in a democracy. And that is how they act. So even though the constitution promises the the states a republican form of govt they don't deliver. And we keep voting the same people to represent themselves in D.C. Apparently, people in the U.S. want to live in a democracy not a republic.


Even though we say we are a republic we have become a democracy. Too bad. As the founding fathers said democracies were the worst type of tyranny. And democracies tend to die violent deaths.

Democracies and republics amount to much the same thing. We fulfill the requirements of both. The difference is that in a democracy, you have the choice of electing representatives OR of direct voting.

Typically, one would say the United States as a whole is a republic, and the individual states function more as democracies.

And your opinion of the political system is not fact.

• Main Entry: re·pub·lic
• Pronunciation: \ri-ˈpə-blik\
• Function: noun
• Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
• Date: 1604

1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

• Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
• Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
• Function: noun
• Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
• Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
• Date: 1576

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Originally Posted by denison

Really, a failed economy on the verge of collapse i.e. the bailout.

We've been through worse economies, but nice try.

Originally Posted by denison

Rampant unchecked illegal immigration, do to needs for extremely cheap labor(modern day slavery). Police brutality, political corruption, millions homeless, over a 11 trillion in debt. Not what I would consider successful.

And yet somehow, it still works on a day-to-day, month-to-month, year-to-year basis. You can go back at any point in our history and pick out troublesome issues, and we're still here.

Originally Posted by denison

Uh... Have you ever heard of the "Civil War"? Plenty of people on this very thread don't want to let Texas leave peacefully, some are advocating using force and violence to make them stay. What you said is an outright lie.

As a matter of fact, I have. Which is why I said "constant force and violence". The issue has been settled.