|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 13, 2013 15:08:07 GMT
If someone attempted to kill your Head of State and all your representatives so as to introduce a foreign tyranny even Americans might feel inclined to celebrate the failure of the plot, I suppose. People don't half talk anachronistic nonsense!
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 14, 2013 13:06:07 GMT
If someone attempted to kill your Head of State and all your representatives so as to introduce a foreign tyranny even Americans might feel inclined to celebrate the failure of the plot, I suppose. People don't half talk anachronistic nonsense!
There is also the fundamental fact that there is no substantive difference between a Catholic monarchy and a Protestant monarchy as both are inherently tyrannical.
We, of course, in the United States don't really have that problem because our government is not based upon those elected to represent us but instead it is based upon the US Constitution so even wiping out all of Congress and the Executive Branch, while causing pragmatic problems in replacing them expeditiously, would not present a real threat to America. I would assume the States would call a convention to elect a temporary Congress and Executive while elections were being planned and held. A government based upon the duel sovereignty of the federal and state governments certainly has it's advantages.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 15, 2013 12:59:51 GMT
If someone attempted to kill your Head of State and all your representatives so as to introduce a foreign tyranny even Americans might feel inclined to celebrate the failure of the plot, I suppose. People don't half talk anachronistic nonsense!
There is also the fundamental fact that there is no substantive difference between a Catholic monarchy and a Protestant monarchy as both are inherently tyrannical.
We, of course, in the United States don't really have that problem because our government is not based upon those elected to represent us but instead it is based upon the US Constitution so even wiping out all of Congress and the Executive Branch, while causing pragmatic problems in replacing them expeditiously, would not present a real threat to America. I would assume the States would call a convention to elect a temporary Congress and Executive while elections were being planned and held. A government based upon the duel sovereignty of the federal and state governments certainly has it's advantages.
Your whole current politics, as you know, are based on sick racism. What the hell do you know about England, Britain or history when you talk such codswallop? Who cares what some foreign slave-culture might perhaps have done if it was somewhere else in a different time? Remember the McCarthy dictatorship and talk sense! |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 15, 2013 13:05:56 GMT
If someone attempted to kill your Head of State and all your representatives so as to introduce a foreign tyranny even Americans might feel inclined to celebrate the failure of the plot, I suppose. People don't half talk anachronistic nonsense!
There is also the fundamental fact that there is no substantive difference between a Catholic monarchy and a Protestant monarchy as both are inherently tyrannical.
We, of course, in the United States don't really have that problem because our government is not based upon those elected to represent us but instead it is based upon the US Constitution so even wiping out all of Congress and the Executive Branch, while causing pragmatic problems in replacing them expeditiously, would not present a real threat to America. I would assume the States would call a convention to elect a temporary Congress and Executive while elections were being planned and held. A government based upon the duel sovereignty of the federal and state governments certainly has it's advantages.
[/quote]Your whole current politics, as you know, are based on sick racism. What the hell do you know about England, Britain or history when you talk such codswallop? Like the USA 'England' as a concept is of foreign origin. So what? Who cares what some foreign slave-culture might perhaps have done if it was somewhere else in a different time? Remember the McCarthy dictatorship and talk sense![/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 15, 2013 14:33:46 GMT
Let's address the issue of whether the United States would celebrate if a foreign power attempted to invade and subjugate the American People to foreign tyranny and we defeated them from another angle.
In 1812 the British attacked and invaded the United States and we have no celebrations related to the defeat of the British in the War of 1812. They even burned down our capital and still no celebration related to our defeat of the British (for the second time).
Of course to be fair the lyrics for our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, came from the poem "Defence of Fort McHenry" by Francis Scott Key after he witnessed the British naval bombardment of the fort during the War of 1912 but even it didn't mention the actual war. We don't even celebrate the Battle of Yorktown that resulted in our final independence. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 15, 2013 14:39:03 GMT
Your whole current politics, as you know, are based on sick racism. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 15, 2013 14:46:44 GMT
Your whole current politics, as you know, are based on sick racism. I was treating 'you' as you appear to be treating British people, as part of a collective. If terrorists want to kill your whole leadership, objecting is not religious prejudice, and anyone who is so muddled as to suppose so deserves all he gets!  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 15, 2013 15:25:30 GMT
Let us clarify that much of my political opinion is based upon anti-racism as denial of equality based upon racism, or any other invidious criteria, violates the Inalienable Rights of the Person. I was treating 'you' as you appear to be treating British people, as part of a collective. If terrorists want to kill your whole leadership, objecting is not religious prejudice, and anyone who is so muddled as to suppose so deserves all he gets!
The "Catholics" were not terrorists, Guy Fawkes that happened to be a Catholic was a terrorist and his motivation was political and not religious although, under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, religion was being used for political purposes. The same is true today in the US because we cannot condemn Muslims for the attacks of 9/11 because the Islamic religion wasn't the actual reason for those attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 15, 2013 16:28:21 GMT
I was treating 'you' as you appear to be treating British people, as part of a collective. If terrorists want to kill your whole leadership, objecting is not religious prejudice, and anyone who is so muddled as to suppose so deserves all he gets!
The "Catholics" were not terrorists, Guy Fawkes that happened to be a Catholic was a terrorist and his motivation was political and not religious although, under the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, religion was being used for political purposes. The same is true today in the US because we cannot condemn Muslims for the attacks of 9/11 because the Islamic religion wasn't the actual reason for those attacks. Fawkes was, in fact, acting on Papal authority, to re-establish popery by force, and that is a fact. It is no reason to persecute contemporary Roman Catholics, but they had, as you know, been murdering a great number of our and other peoples to force their beliefs on us. The past happened: we have to draw sensible conclusions, not lie about it. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 15, 2013 19:37:58 GMT
What many seem to ignore is that leadership of a religion is a political, not a spiritual, position of power. Rarely do the followers of a religion agree with all of the religious teachings of the head of a church. For example in the US 95% of Catholic women use birth control at some point while the leaders of the Catholic Church (all men) oppose it. Obviously the religious beliefs of Catholic women are not the same as the male leadership of the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 15, 2013 19:57:37 GMT
Realize that I am an atheist that based upon historical evidence believes that religion itself was created for the purpose of gaining political power.
All religions that I've researched were simply modifications to prior religions where the leaders could control people based upon superstition and ignorance. They plagiarized what they liked and created something new to add to it that would entice the people into believing in the "new" religion typically targeting a political group.
For example the Hebrew religion was a derivative of the prior religion contained in the Epic of Gilgamesh where some of the key stories were plagiarized. The Christian religion merged the Hebrew with Greek/Roman religious beliefs in creating Jesus as a demigod born of "God" and a virgin (e.g. Perseus that was the son of Atlas and the virgin Medusa) to get Romans to believe in Christianity. Had the early Christians not targeted the Romans for conversion "Christianity" would never have been anything but a small Jewish cult soon doomed to extinction. Later Islam was a derivative of Christianity as was the Mormon religion both for political control of the followers.
A bit off topic but I wanted to be clear on where I'm coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 16, 2013 7:10:09 GMT
Let's address the issue of whether the United States would celebrate if a foreign power attempted to invade and subjugate the American People to foreign tyranny and we defeated them from another angle.
In 1812 the British attacked and invaded the United States and we have no celebrations related to the defeat of the British in the War of 1812. They even burned down our capital and still no celebration related to our defeat of the British (for the second time).
Of course to be fair the lyrics for our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, came from the poem "Defence of Fort McHenry" by Francis Scott Key after he witnessed the British naval bombardment of the fort during the War of 1912 but even it didn't mention the actual war. We don't even celebrate the Battle of Yorktown that resulted in our final independence.
The US negotiated for peace at the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 because once Napoleon was defeated in 1814, it obviously freed up massive British forces from around the Empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 16, 2013 13:02:57 GMT
Let's address the issue of whether the United States would celebrate if a foreign power attempted to invade and subjugate the American People to foreign tyranny and we defeated them from another angle.
In 1812 the British attacked and invaded the United States and we have no celebrations related to the defeat of the British in the War of 1812. They even burned down our capital and still no celebration related to our defeat of the British (for the second time).
Of course to be fair the lyrics for our national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, came from the poem "Defence of Fort McHenry" by Francis Scott Key after he witnessed the British naval bombardment of the fort during the War of 1912 but even it didn't mention the actual war. We don't even celebrate the Battle of Yorktown that resulted in our final independence.
The US negotiated for peace at the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 because once Napoleon was defeated in 1814, it obviously freed up massive British forces from around the Empire.
But apparently didn't keep its terms as regards the Native Americans in the North-West. Par for the course! |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 17, 2013 11:25:35 GMT
But apparently didn't keep its terms as regards the Native Americans in the North-West. Par for the course! |
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Nov 18, 2013 13:09:48 GMT
But apparently didn't keep its terms as regards the Native Americans in the North-West. Par for the course! See letter in this week's Economist. Major John R Grodinsky of the Royal Military College of Canada is explaining that the UK stood by its Native-American allies but lacked the military muscle to act deep into the continent. He ends: 'Nor did Britain forget its allies living in the Old North West. British diplomats successfully gained the addition of two clauses designed to protect these people in the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the conflict in 1815. Unfortunately, the United States chose to ignore these clauses and implemented its own policies'. |
|
