No, it doesn't make it alright, it just makes it honest and not hypocritical. I have some respect for honesty but no respect for hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Printable View
No, it doesn't make it alright, it just makes it honest and not hypocritical. I have some respect for honesty but no respect for hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Swedish and Finnish UN troops in Afghanistan have been in three fire fights with the Taliban last week. Now the Swedes have received threats that Swedes will die as a revenge for the Taliban fighters died in those fights. I guess Finland and Sweden won't be safe anymore after putting our noses in the Afghan mess.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
Steve, you have a English Cross of St George flying there, zat mean you're a Pom?Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
I guess you are so would you like to 'splain to our "American-can-do-no-wrong" Canajain friend how your Parliament already a hundred years before was putting limits on Royal prerogatives, and enumerating and codifying Rights?
About time the Finnish troops in Afghanistan did something instead of letting other countries do all the fighting.
Agree, they should have not been there in the first place, and should get out from there soon as possible, cant remember us ever have had any problems with Afganistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Then get out of NATO as well. Oh and take away all womens' rights while you are at it since you don't seem to believe in them. :mad:
lol, we are no member of nato, and what comes to womens rights, check your facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Easy Drifter
How so? I know that our anti-American friend, Jan, has already pointed out that Parliment was putting some restrictions on the King. But that was no where near the limits places on the US government. And every history I've ever read says exactly what Mark points out. That the US Revolution directly sparked the French Revolution, even more restrictions being placed on the UK crown, and maybe a little less directly simmilar things throughout the world. So what do you disagree with?Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
[quote="Mark in Oshawa"]you Mean Fousto and Anthony? I suspect they either don't care or are ignorant in it I agree BUT there are Americans such as Chuck who are just justifiably proud of their country, as we all are about our nations while giving a good debate and defense.
I can bash Americans in ways they cant always refute since I have spent a lot of time down there and have taken their history and compared it to Canada's experiences and understand the drives that created many of the policies in the US. My point tho is my complete respect for not just the US, but any nation that democratically elects its leadership and holds for the most part the rule of law and a definable constitution with individual rights. The USA was the first nation to really create that and much of the rights we enjoy to day are as a result of the fact the Americans forced the issue. Their revolution spawned the French Revolution, and the very rapid opening up and democratic advances in Westminister and the Commonwealth of nations. They didn't invent freedom, but they gave it a loud voice....[/
Mark, I agree with you to a certain point but the American revolution only gave certain people rights. It wasn't until the civil right movement which wasn't really that long ago that all Americans had a right so to speak. I think this maybe the issue of where people may disagree with you.
Grid Girl. The Constution of the US gave everyone those rights. It just wasn't until Lincoln that blacks were freed from slavery and until the 60's that the courts started actually interpreting the laws laid down properly to give those rights. That is the fault of a dopey electorate who accepted things the way they were, and politicians who were content to keep the status quo. Doesn't change the fact that Jefferson drafted the US Declaration with the line "all men are created equal" ( meaning every human of course..not just men or whites ). Jefferson himself knew the hypocracy of him owning slaves when he wrote it but knew it was going to be a hard slog and a lot of upheaval to really enforce that ( the Civil War...the 60's).Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Technically everyone had a right but in reality they didn't. The constitution was hardly worth the paper it was written on untill the civil rights movement too place.
I would re-think that statement. By that logic, the Magna Carta was hardly worth the paper it was written because many of the original provisions have been repealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Alexamateo, you comment is the opposite of what I was trying to point out. The declaration did not become relevent to the US population as a whole untill a much later date. I would say that all men are now or should be equal today. The US population made change to make sure it applied to all. The Magna Carta on the other hand has been changed or repealed in itself. It's curret state is nothing like the original copy that was signed. So yes, the original is worthless but only because we change it.
You may want to rethink your words ole two bit - having opinions different that yours would hardly qualify anyone as ignorant!! Maybe you are confusing the word with "Genius"Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong on its face. You are saying the constitution was worthless for most of it's existence, because we have now changed certain how we interpret certain parts of it. By logical extension, we can say if we re-interpret certain parts of it in the future (i.e. give homosexuals full protected rights), it will render today valuless.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Parliament had cut off the head of the King of England and usually that's a bit of a restriction on what a person, sans tête, can do, at least for most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
The Englishmen who began their Revolt against Royal absolutist prerogatives and after over a year of open rebellion finally wrote our Declaration of Independence knew they were the direct descendants of their English grandfathers who have revolted a century before, and abolished Royalty, and only years later negotiated with CharlesII to return but only with several limitations one of which was critical: Parliament was to control the Exchequer, and thus the Kings power to do ANYTHING depended on getting MONEY TO PAY FOR IT out of Parliament.
Our Bill of Rights, not supported by all of Congress by any means was written by men intimately familiar with the English Bill of Rights.
For those not familiar from Wiki:
Main article: English Bill of Rights
The English Bill of Rights (1689), one of the fundamental documents of English constitutional law, differed substantially in form and intent from the American Bill of Rights, because it was intended to address the rights of citizens as represented by Parliament against the Crown. However, some of its basic tenets are adopted and extended to the general public by the U.S. Bill of Rights, including
* the right of petition
* an independent judiciary (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself),
* freedom from taxation by royal (executive) prerogative, without agreement by Parliament (legislators),
* freedom from a peace-time standing army,
* freedom [for Protestants] to bear arms for their defence, as allowed by law,
* freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign,
* freedom of speech in Parliament,
* freedom from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail, and
* freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial.
So it seems I'm anti-American because I place our Framers of our Constitution in the midst of the Post Enlightenment Culture and general anti-establishment, anti-Absolutist culture that was generally afoot in most of Western Europe in not Europe in general.Quote:
But that was no where near the limits places on the US government. And every history I've ever read says exactly what Mark points out. That the US Revolution directly sparked the French Revolution, even more restrictions being placed on the UK crown, and maybe a little less directly simmilar things throughout the world. So what do you disagree with?
As for the US Revolution directly sparking the French Revolution, well that seems an awfully Americo-centric view and presumes that millions of peasants, maybe 70% illiterate, were aware of and conversant in the details of the American war of 10-15 years before and that somehow was more motivating than the centuries of political exclusion, financial serfdom in which they lived, the lack of any kind of justice, and that they rose up nationwide in their MILLIONS because they were all hot under the collar About the American Revolution.
Seems hard to swallow when we reflect that even today very few people here in USA can answer with any detail or place events into a context the details of our Revolution.
I know what I have been told and read from French sources about the connection between our US Revolution and theirs, but it seems that all the Americans and Canadian wannbe's have it settled so why the hell bother.
PS or am I "anti-American" because I am anti-Absolutist, Anti-Authoritarian and anti-imperialist?
I don't even know where to begin. Thanks for the history lesson though, like I didn't know all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
The French revolution came about because in 1789 the French Monarchy went bankrupt under the rule of Louis XVI and was in no shape or form linked to the US revolution.
What was one of the causes of the French Monarchy going bankrupt? What gave the "peasents" hope that they could actually overthrow a monarchy?Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
King Louis XV1 was enept.....though he was very kind bloke he wasnt very good when it came to moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Mind you the US and French revolutions did have one thing in common...it was about money nothing to do with that word freedom, just like the US revolution..all about money..
Example the Boston Tea Party
When you get right down to it, pretty much every war is about money in one shape or form.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
Yes indeed, then it leads to other things too..Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Chuck34..Im glad to see you agreeing with me LOL ;)
Credit where credit is due. I don't disagree just to disagree. If someone is right about something, even if I don't always agree with other stuff, I can't disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
As for the US Revolution directly sparking the French Revolution, well that seems an awfully Americo-centric view and presumes that millions of peasants, maybe 70% illiterate, were aware of and conversant in the details of the American war of 10-15 years before and that somehow was more motivating than the centuries of political exclusion, financial serfdom in which they lived, the lack of any kind of justice, and that they rose up nationwide in their MILLIONS because they were all hot under the collar About the American Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Seems hard to swallow when we reflect that even today very few people here in USA can answer with any detail or place events into a context the details of our Revolution.
Jan, your record has a scratch in it, and is skipping. Just thought you'd like to know. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Lets see political exclusion, financial serfdom, lack of justice. Where have I heard that before? Hmm, a real head scratcher.
Oh no, they were maybe 70% illiterate!??! That must mean that they hadn't ever heard of the Amerian Revolution and the main points about it, you know overthrowing a monarchy. You've blown my whole point right out of the water.
Do you honestly believe that the French had never heard of the American Revolution? Or that it didn't give them inspiration that "We the People" could topple a monarchy? Litterate or not, details or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Landscape Architecture!!! :p :
I majored in Landscape Architecture in college and we always used to joke that Landscape Architecture caused the French Revolution. We said it as a joke, but there's some truth to it.
France's finance minister was embezzling funds from the treasury and using it to build his estate Vaux-le-Vicomte. When he was finished, he hosted a party to show off his new works. Of course Louis XIV was there. After King Louis saw it he promptly had the finance minister arrested and hired his Landscape Architect, Le Notre, to design and build even more extensive gardens, which became Versailles, and in doing so bankrupted the French government. :)
No, it just seems you're deaf, or have a memory as long as a fly.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
American Peasants today know virtually nothing of the American Revolution except the last Mel Gibson movie maybe, soQuote:
Lets see political exclusion, financial serfdom, lack of justice. Where have I heard that before? Hmm, a real head scratcher.
Oh no, they were maybe 70% illiterate!??! That must mean that they hadn't ever heard of the Amerian Revolution and the main points about it, you know overthrowing a monarchy. You've blown my whole point right out of the water.
Do you honestly believe that the French had never heard of the American Revolution? Or that it didn't give them inspiration that "We the People" could topple a monarchy? Litterate or not, details or not?
sure yes I am fairly certain that the millions of illiterate peasants knew nothing of importance of the American Revolution.
But I knew that there was a core of junior Army officers who had seen one thing that led to many siding with the People when the Revolution finally came
and that thing was MERIT, an unknown concept in Absolutist regimes.
So while you're ranting and raving and redefining the words "SELF Reliance" to me "If I choose to get help from anybody I choose then I'm still being SELF reliant cause I choose them", you ignore the lasting trait of American society (until we had our own Aristocracy (based solely on money not land) which many Junior Officers in the French Army got to see first hand.
You assertion that millions of peasants were conversant with the details of the American Revolution and that it was prominent in the minds of French peasants, and was in their minds as encouragement is beyond absurd, that assertion verges on inanity.
Shirley, you jest.
Yes if you want the patriotic angle of the American revolution stick to them films thats shows the Americans as stout hearted, freedom loving and heroic :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
the truth is a bit more messy.
Anyway im through with this thread.... :wave:
When have I ever said that the French people needed to know all the details of the American Revolution? Never. They only needed to know the main point. That there is this country, called the US or "America", that was once ruled by a King. The people rose up and cast him off. That really isn't that hard to believe. The fact that you think people in the 18th century were so dumb as not not know the main jist of the American Revolution, is beyond absurd. And to think that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't know about the US and what happened here, is even more absurd than that!Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
People now, in this day and age, not knowing the details of the Revolution is not the point here what-so-ever. But I do think that most Americans today know at least as much about the Revolution as "illiterate French Peasents" did in the 1780s-90s. And that is a lot more than you are willing to give them credit for. Stop watching "Jay-walking". Those idiots they find are not a representative sample of the public.
And don't call me Shirley. :-)
I never said you were suggesting the French illiterate peasantry "needed to know all the details", I took issues with your wild, unfounded fantasy that OUR Revolution was a motivational factor of any weight .Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
That sort of disingenuous shifting of what was said is one reason some people find discussions with people like you pointless and sterile.
The following is 100% idle blather based on "that isn't that hard to believe".
God save us.
But that was no "News", people rose up constantly all over the place. If fact the whole rise of "Absolutism" by the Royalty was a response to a few centuries of FREQUENT revolts and uprisings and PEOPLE asserting their rights.Quote:
They only needed to know the main point. That there is this country, called the US or "America", that was once ruled by a King. The people rose up and cast him off. That really isn't that hard to believe.
See? Once again you put words in my mouth which I NEVER said NOR IMPLIED. And you use immflamatory words, agian which I never used.Quote:
The fact that you think people in the 18th century were so dumb as not not know the main jist of the American Revolution, is beyond absurd.
That is why I think you are a basically dishonest person, very dishonest and as such I have zero respect for you, and nothing but contempt for your dishonest way of arguing.
I suggested that the French peasntry had plenty to be piised off about from their own day to day--GENERATION to GENERATION experience and like many people before and since, were perfectly aware of their circumstances.
I did NOT in any way suggest they were dumb---those are your words.
I suggested that many were quite possibly INGORANT of the details, and course and grieveances of the British Colonists, which does not imply smart/dumb---except to thickheaded ignorantes monolinguistico Norte Americanos-=----it means and is accepted to mean "un-informed".
I suggest your read a bit on the "Cahiers de Doléances"--there is enough in English to be enlightening.
Again you put words into my mouth---it seems to be instinctive or reflexive for you to do that---and it sucks.Quote:
And to think that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't know about the US and what happened here, is even more absurd than that!
YOU just introduced the idea of the "Leaders" or the Revolution and that, seeing how the 3 "Estates", the Clergy, the Seigneurial class, and the "Third Esate"---peasants and urban workers, all listed their grievances, all were ready for radical change as it was obvious that the entire social system was rotten to the core, which "leaders" are you referring to?
That is an unfounded and impossible to rationally discuss [b]assertion[/u]Quote:
People now, in this day and age, not knowing the details of the Revolution is not the point here what-so-ever. But I do think that most Americans today know at least as much about the Revolution as "illiterate French Peasents" did in the 1780s-90s. And that is a lot more than you are willing to give them credit for.
It is this imagined centrality of OUR experiences effect on the WHOLE WORLD that makes much of the world roll their eyes back in their heads and write off Americans as immature, ignorant yahoos.
Why would our Revolution be more meaningful that Pugachev's Revolt at about the same time just a thousand miles away? Or The Scots final uprising just a few years before?
Get real, man. Their grievances were enough to rise up and risk their lives.
Give other people credit for being able to have the awareness of their own situation without making up elaborate presumptions of their own motivations.
It's Franken-STEEN.Quote:
And don't call me Shirley. :-)
We seem to have drifted a wee bit away from the original thrust of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Well I'll just let that lay there. I'm sure I'm just shifting arguments again, or some such nonsence.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Cool. Have a good one. *bye-bye*Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
That is why I think you are a basically dishonest person, very dishonest and as such I have zero respect for you, and nothing but contempt for your dishonest way of arguing.
WOW my fuching heart is broken. Like someone would really give a sh!t about how you feel about them - you need to get over yourself!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I know I should let this go, but I just can't at this point. Where exactly did I put words in your mouth? You said that the peasants didn't know the details of the American Revolution. I said they didn't need to know the details, just the jist. Then you come back and say that I'm dishonest and putting words in your mouth? And worse yet, using inflamatory words ... "Absurd" was your word, and I re-used it. AND you went a step further and suggested that either I, or my ideas were insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by janvanvurpa
Now who is being dishonest?
Ok now I'm done.
JanVan you need to learn to come on here make your point and then STFU. We don't need to hear your liberal "chip on the shoulder" ranting and raving bullsh!t.
Make a point and Don't SUCK !!
Well he has made some very valid pointsQuote:
Originally Posted by fousto
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_spackman
thats what I said "make the point" and then STFU
A valid point is not what he thinks of Chuck
Fausto, Why don't you get one of these?
http://www.nnytimes.com/images/NY_hunting_permit.jpg
I am in
where do i go to get one