SCOTUS Says 'No'. Smash and Dash Time!

[TheDarkling]

Keep in mind that *my* dream involves an America that unquestionably rules the world. [/code]

In Britain we call dreams that turn out badly nightmares.

[CelesKnight]

In Britain we call dreams that turn out badly nightmares.

Clever, but do you really feel that way? It seems to me that Britain (and perhaps the whole world, although that's far more questionable) would be better off under a world headed by an unquestionable American hegemony* than they would under a similar empire/hegemony led by China or Mecca or Russia or the bureaucrats in the UN or even the EU. Assuming that removing all non-American nuclear weapons is part of the hegemony, it would probably be safer than even our current system.

I am, of course, not claiming that those are the only possibilities, but it’s easy to imagine how those could come (or could have came) about. And while I can imagine many ideal world governments, it’s for more unlikely that we can achieve them anytime soon.

BTW, I’m not necessarily arguing for an American empire, I’m just trying to feel out what the opinions really are--if American empire would be worse than the other likely possibilities.


*--I say hegemony, as I don't think that American wants or could achieve a true world empire. However, I do think that America has been trying to achieve a strong hegemony over separate, independent states for most of it’s existence. First in the Americas, then in the rest of the world.

[kojikun]

im tempted to take a sledge hammer to the monument, just to piss the people off.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well much you guys' dismay. The Federal judge will simply levy a fine on Alabama untill this matter is decided in the ISC. So no Federal marshals comming in with tractors.

Nope, the eight other justices have signed to order to have it removed. It's coming out, and I imagine some kind of heavy equipment will be involved.

True, however this will be going to the Supreme court.

It already has bitch boy! They refused to grant Judge Moores request. This has been gone over so many times that SCOTUS said "fuck off, get this clown out of our courtroom) and refused to even hear the case. The last ruing stands. Moore looses, and leaves a massive court precedant if he or anyone else ever tries this shit again.

Praise be the first ammendment.

[EmperorSolo51]

It already has bitch boy! They refused to grant Judge Moores request. This has been gone over so many times that SCOTUS said "fuck off, get this clown out of our courtroom) and refused to even hear the case. The last ruing stands. Moore looses, and leaves a massive court precedant if he or anyone else ever tries this shit again.

Praise be the first ammendment.

That was a request for a stay in the order. Also, the Supreme Court said that they would stay out of this for now. Which means they could take it up.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It already has bitch boy! They refused to grant Judge Moores request. This has been gone over so many times that SCOTUS said "fuck off, get this clown out of our courtroom) and refused to even hear the case. The last ruing stands. Moore looses, and leaves a massive court precedant if he or anyone else ever tries this shit again.

Praise be the first ammendment.

That was a request for a stay in the order. Also, the Supreme Court said that they would stay out of this for now. Which means they could take it up.

But they wont before the deadline.

And based on previous rulings, I know how they would rule.

[CelesKnight]

That was a request for a stay in the order. Also, the Supreme Court said that they would stay out of this for now. Which means they could take it up.

Nah, the monument’s gone. It's too close to the deadline, and giving in after the deadline would set a bad example. I wonder why SCOTUS didn't take it up and set a definitive precedent? Perhaps the more partisan judges on both sites are worried about the swing votes? Or is there enough precedent already that this case is redundant?

[RedImperator]

That was a request for a stay in the order. Also, the Supreme Court said that they would stay out of this for now. Which means they could take it up.

Nah, the monument’s gone. It's too close to the deadline, and giving in after the deadline would set a bad example. I wonder why SCOTUS didn't take it up and set a definitive precedent? Perhaps the more partisan judges on both sites are worried about the swing votes? Or is there enough precedent already that this case is redundant?

I think it's the latter. This is a fairly conservaitve court and has ruled against strict separation before, but this is just too blatant to be anything other than Roy Moore using secular law to jam his beliefs down the taxpayer's throat.

[phongn]

Keep in mind that *my* dream involves an America that unquestionably rules the world. [/code]

In Britain we call dreams that turn out badly nightmares.

You know you want green money

[Stuart Mackey]

The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.

All King George had to do was give us represenation in Parliament, and we'd be a happy, healthy member of Her Majesty's commonwealth to this day.

Well, actually, if that had happened, the British Empire would still exist, as instead of moving towards decentralization, it would have moved towards a centralized government--instead of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, getting their own Parliaments, they would have gotten representation in the UK Parliament. Most of North America, and Australia and New Zealand, would still be part of Britain, and would be run from London, sending representatives to Westminster.

I dont thinks so. Given the nature of communications and of geography you would still have had the move towards independence, albeit at a later date.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

While “Taxation without representation" was a nice sound bite the colonial rabble-rousers didn't want representation in Parliament (due to it being corrupt, unfeeling to the colonials, or simply because they wanted power for themselves) they wanted autonomy.

The mid level merchants wanted a freer hand in their trade, the prospectors (the other main occupations) were annoyed about Parliament creating the royal proclamation line, in essence drawing a line on the map and saying everything else belonged to the Indians and just about everybody was upset that the British didn't crack down on the "filthy Papists" in Quebec.


In the end elements in the colonies saw an opportunity to gain power for themselves, ceased it and then got away with it.

Thats some of shittiest "reasoning" I've ever seen. Not o nly does it ignore historical documentation to the contrary, but it also ignores "Common Sense" and common sense. Reconciliation with England was the popular position in the colonies, until Paine wrote his historic phamphlet. Furthermore, Milita Volunteers do not stand up t he the most powerful army in t he world, an army composed of the same "nationality" which they consider themselves, and endure a harsh winter at Valley Forge, because "they want power for themselves" or they "don't like the Papists in Quebec".

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I dont thinks so. Given the nature of communications and of geography you would still have had the move towards independence, albeit at a later date.

I disagree, the eras following the American Revolution were ones filled with Nationalism, Americans would see themselves as "Englishmen" and as a result their Nationalism would be directed towards "the mother country" and not towards Independence. [/quote]

[Stuart Mackey]

I dont thinks so. Given the nature of communications and of geography you would still have had the move towards independence, albeit at a later date.

I disagree, the eras following the American Revolution were ones filled with Nationalism, Americans would see themselves as "Englishmen" and as a result their Nationalism would be directed towards "the mother country" and not towards Independence.

NZ, since at least 1915 has seen itself as a individual nation. The reasosn are simply that geography and comminications {and a world war} mean that we are differnt to the British in our customs and our mannerisms, our speech and our social attitudes. Given these facts and the very nature of democracy it is virtually inevitable that ther be a move to independence from Britian..we have nothing in common. Why would there be a differnce with the American colonies? the revolution preempted what would have happned naturally.

[Gil Hamilton]

Ah, I love Bill O'Reilly. I just got done watching the factor where O'Reilly was interviewing a guy about the issue, and good ole O'Reilly made statements saying that the Ten Commandments aren't off a specific religion, nor do they refer to a specific god. He seems to have not read the first four of them

[Rubberanvil]

im tempted to take a sledge hammer to the monument, just to piss the people off.

I would suggest doing that when nobody's looking otherwise you will suffer a very painful death by the fundies, and the cops ain't going to risk their lives to save you.

[TheDarkling]

Thats some of shittiest "reasoning" I've ever seen. Not o nly does it ignore historical documentation to the contrary, but it also ignores "Common Sense" and common sense. Reconciliation with England was the popular position in the colonies, until Paine wrote his historic phamphlet. Furthermore, Milita Volunteers do not stand up t he the most powerful army in t he world, an army composed of the same "nationality" which they consider themselves, and endure a harsh winter at Valley Forge, because "they want power for themselves" or they "don't like the Papists in Quebec".

I'm going to assume you don't understand the term rabble rouser.

Main Entry: rab·ble-rous·er
Pronunciation: 'ra-b&l-"rau-z&r
Function: noun
Date: 1843
: one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people :


The soldiers probably bought into the propaganda and I didn't talk about their motivations (although I thought it rather clear that I was saying the populous was being manipulated) only those who were architects of the revolution.