Happy Independence Day

[Calax]

"Although the brits could have easily ended the War of Independance if their commanders had pushed the matter early on rather than kept trying to find peaceful solutions. "

 

Excuses Amerika makes all the time in regards to wars that didn't go there way. ie. The US dominated the Vietnam wars if you look at pure military might but Amerika as a country didn't have the political will to push through just as with British. Bottom line is the settlers wanted their freedom more than the British wanted to control them in the end.

Comparing a war from the information age where orders could be relayed from the white house to the field in seconds to a conflict where the closest reinforcements is 3 dangerous months away, is idiotic to say the least.

 

The British commanders at the time were lenient to the rebels, trying to engender good will and get them to settle down and be good little imperial citizens. This was earlier in the war when the Brothers Howe were in charge (one being the naval master, one being in charge of armies). It wasn't until the southern campaign where a lot of the tories in the south were wiped out that the colonies started to take control (this was also when french support really started to take effect) and win the war, rather than get their faces kicked in and flee.

[Monte Carlo]

Are Britons nowadays still educated that the British Empire only brought good deeds around the world?

 

That's like Germans trying to vindicate the advances the Nazis brought in medicine, engineering etc.

 

You are a troll and I claim my ten pounds. Comparing the British Empire, even warts and all, with the Nazis is idiotic.

Still living in denial? Is it true the Queen wears a diamond stolen from India in her crown named "Spoils of war"? How very tasteless.

 

I note that you avoid your ludicrous Nazi comment. Hapsburgs to Nazis is hardly a position to criticize national legacy, is it?

[Morgoth]

I note that you avoid your ludicrous Nazi comment. Hapsburgs to Nazis is hardly a position to criticize national legacy, is it?

The Habsburg weren't mass murderes and colonialists last time I checked, though after the horrible mistake of 1914 we just kicked them out. Why haven't the British people relinquished the monarchy yet? And the Nazis were a German party.

 

You still haven't answered my question.

[Monte Carlo]

I note that you avoid your ludicrous Nazi comment. Hapsburgs to Nazis is hardly a position to criticize national legacy, is it?

And the Nazis were a German party.

 

The Austrians had nothing to do with the Nazi party?

 

* snorts *

 

Denial ain't a river in Egypt.

[Morgoth]

You still lack the ability to understand what was really going on. There was a Nazi party in Austria implemented with aid from the outside, but remember that Austria was the first state which prohibited the Nazi party officially and locked all members into prison, while you Brits and Frenchies just sat on your asses and did nothing. Miraculously when Hitler invaded Poland you just declared war.

 

Still not willing to answer my questions, I see. You Brits are truly ignorant and insolence chaps.

[Laozi]

has anyone talked about the Catholics yet, now talk about having success with rape and murder

[Morgoth]

You still lack the ability to understand what was really going on. There was a Nazi party in Austria implemented with aid from the outside, but remember that Austria was the first state which prohibited the Nazi party officially and locked all members into prison, while you Brits and Frenchies just sat on your asses and did nothing. Miraculously when Hitler invaded Poland you just declared war.

 

Still not willing to answer my questions, I see. You Brits are truly ignorant and insolence chaps.

 

Wow, the education system there really has bulk-ordered air-brushes.

Look who is talking.

 

Talking about mass murder, the British Empire murdered 10 million Indians

 

They also invented the KZ.

[Walsingham]

You still lack the ability to understand what was really going on. There was a Nazi party in Austria implemented with aid from the outside, but remember that Austria was the first state which prohibited the Nazi party officially and locked all members into prison, while you Brits and Frenchies just sat on your asses and did nothing. Miraculously when Hitler invaded Poland you just declared war.

 

Still not willing to answer my questions, I see. You Brits are truly ignorant and insolence chaps.

 

The key indicator there, old man, is that we didn't NEED to outlaw the Nazi party. What with no-one here wanting to belong to it. Apart from the king, obviously.

 

And, you know, if you chaps had stood up to fascism as valiantly as you say you did then Hitler wouldn't have got around to invading Poland. Just saying.

 

More to the point, although the yanks did turn up exceedingly late to the party a lot of them did die. And a lot more worked like dervishes making the guns and bullets we all used fighting. So another hurrah for America!

[Monte Carlo]

They also invented the KZ.

 

Now you really are stepping into territory where you haven't got a bloody clue what you're talking about.

 

I presume you're talking about the South African / Boer War 'concentration camp' system. Not Britain's finest hour, I'll grant you. A clumsy, nasty attempt to manage an insurgency.

 

What it wasn't was a mechanised attempt at deliberate genocide driven by ideology.

 

I'm Jewish, by the way. Most Jews would be offended by childish comparisons between the two. So, please, brew a big mug of STFU.

[Morgoth]

Huh? Standing up against a bully like Hitler was suicide. Even Czechosloavkia which back than had estimated a 8-9 times stronger army than Austria did not fire a single bullet.

[Malcador]

What was that guy's name again, Neville something.

 

Kind of funny how this thread's progressing, immensely amusing.

[Orogun01]

What was that guy's name again, Neville something.

 

Kind of funny how this thread's progressing, immensely amusing.

Do you mean Godwin's law?

[Morgoth]

You still lack the ability to understand what was really going on. There was a Nazi party in Austria implemented with aid from the outside, but remember that Austria was the first state which prohibited the Nazi party officially and locked all members into prison, while you Brits and Frenchies just sat on your asses and did nothing. Miraculously when Hitler invaded Poland you just declared war.

 

Still not willing to answer my questions, I see. You Brits are truly ignorant and insolence chaps.

 

The key indicator there, old man, is that we didn't NEED to outlaw the Nazi party. What with no-one here wanting to belong to it. Apart from the king, obviously.

Of course you didn't, old fat man. You guys were sitting on your blessed island and had no immediate danger of being bullied and overan like certain neighboring countries of Germany.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Morgoth

[Malcador]

Do you mean Godwin's law?

 

Nah, just the British.

[Morgoth]

What it wasn't was a mechanised attempt at deliberate genocide driven by ideology.

Murder is still murder.

[Calax]

Sooo...

 

Anyone want to explain to me why we're discussing Nazi's in Britan and Austria in a thread about the US independence from Britannia 200 years ago?

[HoonDing]

What was that guy's name again, Neville something.

 

Kind of funny how this thread's progressing, immensely amusing.

Neville Chamberlain?

[Walsingham]

Sooo...

 

Anyone want to explain to me why we're discussing Nazi's in Britan and Austria in a thread about the US independence from Britannia 200 years ago?

 

Glad you asked. It's because Britain's former colonies include the USA, India, Canada, South Africa and Australia. I can't help feeling your independence was a wee bit premature.

[Volourn]

"Glad you asked. It's because Britain's former colonies include the USA, India, Canada, South Africa and Australia. I can't help feeling your independence was a wee bit premature. "

 

Kanada is still a British colony. They can have the 'legal right' to abuse a power to decide who our PM is no matter what Kanadians vote.

 

 

"I'm Jewish, by the way"

 

Is this supposed to impress or initmidate us into agreeing with what you say - even if it's complete nonsense? Jew or not, you are still plainly wrong. The briths Empire was the veryd efintion of evil just like the Nazis. Just because the BE didn't specifically target jews - they preferred Africans and Indians for target practice - doesn't make them any less evil and scummy. Stiop being a bigot. I would thinka jew would udnerstand what bigotry does.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Volourn

[Guard Dog]

I know the horse has left the barn as far as independence day goes but I wanted to post this before this thread become too irrelevant. I do not know who wrote this or when but it makes the email rounds every year or two and is so dead on it bears repeating and posting here.

 

From: THE FOUNDING FATHERS

To: THE CURRENT GENERATION OF AMERICANS

 

On this the 235th anniversary of our independence, those of us whom you call the Founding Fathers have assembled in Continental heaven to assess the condition of the republic we bequeathed to you. It's true America has become the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. But so was the British Empire in 1776.

 

Before we get specific, we must confess that we are annoyed by your habit of misinterpreting our words. Take the First Amendment, where we said Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion." You usually neglect the other half of the injunction, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

As anyone in the first Congress, which passed the amendment, could have told you, "establishment of religion" means an established church, which all are forced to support. We never intended to create a virtue-less republic, by prohibiting public expressions of faith.

 

In the Declaration of Independence, we acknowledged that rights are endowed by our Creator. Absent a Creator, there are no inalienable rights.

 

In the Second Amendment, we said the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In our day, if private citizens hadn't owned guns there would have been no Lexington and Concord.

 

Why would we bother guaranteeing a collective right to arm state militias? The rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments are restraints on government, not grants of power to it. If you ever wake up to what's going on, your leaders will have cause to fear an armed citizenry.

 

We viewed elective office as a sacrifice. For your politicians, it's an opportunity. We rid America of a monarchy. You've established an elected aristocracy. We were farmers, merchants and professionals who resumed our careers after a brief term of service and never lost touch with our constituents.

 

You are governed by an elite so different from you as to almost constitute a separate species. Your elected rulers hold office for 20 or 30 years, becoming increasingly detached from their roots, while rewarding themselves lavish emoluments and pensions.

 

We revolted over a modest tax on tea. Your tax burden is staggering. Despite the enormous expenditures of your prodigal politicians, even they can't spend it all. And still, many resist returning the federal surplus to its rightful owners. We rejected taxation without representation. You condone your own serfdom.

 

In the Declaration, we complained that King George III had "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." You complacently tolerate a bureaucracy that resembles all Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 

Eat out their substance? Today, almost one in eight Americans works for a branch of government. Harass our people? There are bureaucrats to tell you how to run your business, build on your property and raise your children. Government makes decisions for you regarding your health, safety and welfare.

 

We envisioned the judiciary as a coequal branch of government that interprets laws based on the clear meaning of language. Your courts have become a law unto themselves -- raising taxes, deciding elections, ordering private relationships and substituting their will for that of legislators.

 

We warned you against entangling alliances. You are eager to form defensive pacts with postage-stamp countries whose security couldn't conceivably be related to your own. This will only serve to drag you into their petty quarrels, sapping your strength.

 

We recognized that government and society must rest on divine wisdom. George Washington observed, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

 

You cultivate national immorality, in the apparent belief that compulsory acceptance of perversion will somehow lead to a society whose citizens have the self-discipline to sacrifice for the common good.

 

Benjamin Franklin said we gave you a republic "if you can keep it." From our vantage point, it does not look promising. Were we alive today, we'd raise another rebellion.

[Calax]

So, you're saying that the quarter of that document that deals with the fact that "DAMNIT THIS COUNTRY BE RELIGIOUS YO! AND YOU GOTTA BE PIOUS!" is perfectly dead on?

[Walsingham]

I think the funniest thing here is the argument that government should be as small as possible, yet a lack of religion in government is to blame for a lack of public morality. How is the ideal rump government supposed to enforce or promote said public morality? Perhaps it could permit citizens to use their militias to enforce virtue? Maybe by big information campaigns paid for with taxes they can't collect? What about when the impious is being promoted by private companies of a size and power the Founding Fathers literally couldn't imagine? If you shrink the government to below the size of the California porn industry, what happens then?

 

Treating the Founding Fathers like apostles who turned up late to the party is understandable, and may serve to bolster faith in the constitution. A constitution which has some neat ideas which need better defence than they receive. But having faith in the Founding Fathers is patently absurd. It divides the constitutions defenders into the rationalists and faith-based camps, and tehreby takes away far more than it delivers.

 

You're only hurting your own cause, mate. Desist.

[Guard Dog]

So, you're saying that the quarter of that document that deals with the fact that "DAMNIT THIS COUNTRY BE RELIGIOUS YO! AND YOU GOTTA BE PIOUS!" is perfectly dead on?

So letssee, out of sixteen short praragraphs, two of them mention religion, one of those make the assertion that is was essential in the minds of the founders when actually creating the Constitution so you reject the entire thing as religious huh? Without getting into the debate about the efforts to exterminate all religious expression in the public eye that is going on in this country these days, these are the passages I thought were dead on:

 

Before we get specific, we must confess that we are annoyed by your habit of misinterpreting our words. Take the First Amendment, where we said Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion." You usually neglect the other half of the injunction, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

In the Second Amendment, we said the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. In our day, if private citizens hadn't owned guns there would have been no Lexington and Concord.

 

Why would we bother guaranteeing a collective right to arm state militias? The rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments are restraints on government, not grants of power to it. If you ever wake up to what's going on, your leaders will have cause to fear an armed citizenry.

 

We viewed elective office as a sacrifice. For your politicians, it's an opportunity. We rid America of a monarchy. You've established an elected aristocracy. We were farmers, merchants and professionals who resumed our careers after a brief term of service and never lost touch with our constituents.

 

You are governed by an elite so different from you as to almost constitute a separate species. Your elected rulers hold office for 20 or 30 years, becoming increasingly detached from their roots, while rewarding themselves lavish emoluments and pensions.

 

We revolted over a modest tax on tea. Your tax burden is staggering. Despite the enormous expenditures of your prodigal politicians, even they can't spend it all. And still, many resist returning the federal surplus to its rightful owners. We rejected taxation without representation. You condone your own serfdom.

 

In the Declaration, we complained that King George III had "sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." You complacently tolerate a bureaucracy that resembles all Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 

Eat out their substance? Today, almost one in eight Americans works for a branch of government. Harass our people? There are bureaucrats to tell you how to run your business, build on your property and raise your children. Government makes decisions for you regarding your health, safety and welfare.

 

We envisioned the judiciary as a coequal branch of government that interprets laws based on the clear meaning of language. Your courts have become a law unto themselves -- raising taxes, deciding elections, ordering private relationships and substituting their will for that of legislators.

 

You know Calax, we have been trading posts for a few years now. I've got a pretty good idea where you stand on most issues and I would not take something you posted and construe it into something I know you would not say yourself. Perhaps it would be fair to return that courtesy?

 

Wals, do you get what I'm saying here? Or do I need to call you out too? I'm just posting an email thats been floating around for a few years now. I did not write it myself, I do not stand by it's contents 100% but I do think it is a pretty good read. You have all read enough f my writing to know what I think and vice versa.

[Calax]

Except that that email is so hyper-exaggerated in order to make more of an impact it's stupid. Does it have a few good points? Maybe, but it also ignores the realities of life and how things have changed since 1776. The religion thing is big because as a part of preventing the estabilshment is making sure that Jonny Numbnuts who wants to score a few points doesn't put a giant christian crucifix on the front of the capitol building and then declare holy war on his citizens.

 

As to the supreme court, it treats it like the justices are able to reach into the legislature, pluck a law, and change how it works just by shrugging and wiggling. There is a very firm legal process to get to the point where the supreme court even considers looking at a case. Never mind the fact that the Supreme Court has to deal with a document written in a 1776 mindset where anyone not white is considered 3/5ths of a whitey, and they have to reconcile that with "All men are created equal".

 

Also, it's kinda obvious that that email was written in the 90's under Clinton given that there hasn't been a surplus since that point. This was also the rise of the militia movements who weren't really restricted unless they decided to yank out their AR's and go after feds.

[Hurlshort]

It also seems to completely ignore the fact that the founding fathers were extremely wealthy. All that stuff about aristocracy and sacrifice is a bit of a stretch. Speaking of the government making decisions for us, why did they establish an electoral college?

 

That bothered me a lot more than the religious assertions, although they did open with that and it doesn't seem to really jive with the rest. Specifically, how is our country virtue-less? in 1776 we had slavery. Slavery. That probably bears repeating. We bought and sold people in 1776. Morality is a pretty tough thing to define, but it is hard to take anyone serious that thinks we haven't become better people as a whole in 235 years.

 

So the whole spiel contradicts itself with jumping between "Government shouldn't tell us what to do!" and "National immorality should not be allowed to exist!" If it had just stuck to the complaints about politicians I would have jumped on board with it.

 

It is interesting if this is from the 90's, because it really sounds like an anti-gay marriage rant when it uses words like perversion and ordering private relationships. The more things change, the more crotchety old people cling to a rose colored view of the past, I suppose.