Happy July 4 (and Dominion Day)!

[Guest American Woman]

Well, I'm able to form an outside opinion based on what I see. Perhaps you and I see differently because the American nation portrays a different face to the world than it does to itself? I see a weak understanding of foreign culture and government in the popular media that's manufactured in the US; and I'm sure the messages broadcast beyond the country's borders aren't different from those that reach US television sets.

And you "see" most Americans, do you?

I hate to break it to you, but "Americans" and "the popular media" aren't even close to being the same thing, and if you think they are, and if you think the media gives you more knowledge and insight about Americans than I have as an American, you have a serious problem with the "fantasies" you accuse others of having-- along with a few other problems.

But keep thinking what you must about Americans. As I said, it says nothing about us, but speaks volumes about you.

In the meantime, keep in mind that your opinion is most definitely and "outside" opinion. That's one thing that you did get right.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... If you want to say the British parliament and government caused conflict through their actions, fine; but you can't pin the cause of the conflicts on the fact that the United Kingdom was a monarchy.

What else do I need to "prove"? What part of "monarchy" do you not understand? It was not taxes, or westward expansion, or impressment, or any one of many other factors that caused the revolution...NO...it was the underlying mechanism of governance that free men found to be intolerable and no longer acceptable This is what fundamentally separated the rebels from the loyalists.

We shall have no more kings!

Fast forward to today....we have "Peace, order, and good government" for Canada....Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for the Americans.

Don't make me open up a can of Patrick Henry whupp ass on 'ya.....

[bush_cheney2004]

And you "see" most Americans, do you?

I hate to break it to you, but "Americans" and "the popular media" aren't even close to being the same thing, and if you think they are, and if you think the media gives you more knowledge and insight about Americans than I have as an American, you have a serious problem with the "fantasies" you accuse others of having.....

This is spot on, but some of the poor devils don't know the difference and are faced with a barren media wasteland absent American content. Like you, and accordingly, I want to be careful not to lump all Canucks into any such generalization. There are 300,000,000 Americans from all around the world....there is a reason for this.

Edited July 10, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[g_bambino]

I hate to break it to you, but "Americans" and "the popular media" aren't even close to being the same thing, and if you think they are, and if you think the media gives you more knowledge and insight about Americans than I have as an American, you have a serious problem with the "fantasies" you accuse others of having-- along with a few other problems.

Popular media wouldn't be what it is unless it was, well... popular. How else could it be popular if it wasn't paid attention to by the majority of consumers? I realise watching television isn't a PhD thesis on American cultural paradigms, but it is a pretty big window into what the nation is absorbing and, most likely, spitting out again to be absorbed by others, and so on.

[g_bambino]

What else do I need to "prove"? What part of "monarchy" do you not understand? It was not taxes, or westward expansion, or impressment, or any one of many other factors that caused the revolution...NO...it was the underlying mechanism of governance that free men found to be intolerable and no longer acceptable This is what fundamentally separated the rebels from the loyalists.

You need to prove, yet again, that Britain's being a monarchy was the cause of conflict. I think you're running into trouble doing so because you don't understand any part of constitutional monarchy. The cause for revolution was because decisions were being made in London that affected the Amercian colonists, that the American colonists did not like, and over which they had little to no control. That is the nature of being a colony, whether it's a colony of a monarchy of the colony of a republic! If the colonists so hated the idea of monarchy itself, they wouldn't have originally looked to the King to act in their favour or wanted to remain loyal to him. If the colonists so hated the idea of monarchy itself, they wouldn't have turned to the even less democratic monarchy of France for support. If the colonists so hated the idea of monarchy itself, they wouldn't have settled for the elected king system that they got after the rebellion. Monarchy itself was not the mechanism of government they hated, it was the absence of a mechnism theyy hated - one that allowed them a representative voice like the people of the United Kingdom had in their parliament.

Fast forward to today....we have "Peace, order, and good government" for Canada....

Thank god for that.

[bush_cheney2004]

You need to prove, yet again, that Britain's being a monarchy was the cause of conflict. I think you're running into trouble doing so because you don't understand any part of constitutional monarchy. The cause for revolution was because decisions were being made in London that affected the Amercian colonists, that the American colonists did not like, and over which they had little to no control.

DUH! Ya think?

That is the nature of being a colony, whether it's a colony of a monarchy of the colony of a republic! If the colonists so hated the idea of monarchy itself, they wouldn't have originally looked to the King to act in their favour or wanted to remain loyal to him. If the colonists so hated the idea of monarchy itself, they wouldn't have turned to the even less democratic monarchy of France for support.

Nonsense....the colonists sought redress from a system that was fundamentally unaccepatble by any means necessary. Tell us what happened in France a bit later.

If the colonists so hated the idea of monarchy itself, they wouldn't have settled for the elected king system that they got after the rebellion. Monarchy itself was not the mechanism of government they hated, it was the absence of a mechnism theyy hated - one that allowed them a representative voice like the people of the United Kingdom had in their parliament.

"Elected king" is an oxymoron. The colonists petitioned not once, but twice to seek relief, and finding none, cast off the scourge of a "constitutional monarchy" complete with royal asses for a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

....give me liberty, or give me death. - Patrick Henry

[jbg]

Oops. Double post.

Edited July 10, 2008 by jbg

[M.Dancer]

Give Me Librium or Give me Meth

-Anonymous

The office of President as conceived in the US is pretty much an elected constitutional Monarch. There were those who wanted Washington to be the first King of the Americas...but being a Brutus he would have none of it.

Had King George listened to his wiser council, America would have been spared so much grief....slavery would have ended decades before it did....no civil war....no hanging chad...

[g_bambino]

DUH! Ya think?

Nonsense....the colonists sought redress from a system that was fundamentally unaccepatble by any means necessary. Tell us what happened in France a bit later.

"Elected king" is an oxymoron. The colonists petitioned not once, but twice to seek relief, and finding none, cast off the scourge of a "constitutional monarchy" complete with royal asses for a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

I suppose you are, in your own self-protectively petulant way, now saying you agree with me about the actual resason for the rebellion. Good. I know you already see this now, but I'll reiterate: the colonists would have revolted regardless of whether or not the decisions that affected them were being made without their input by an imperial president or an imperial monarch. Ergo, monarchy itself, replete with the royal asses, was not the cause of the rebellion.

[bush_cheney2004]

The office of President as conceived in the US is pretty much an elected constitutional Monarch.

Bullpuckey....he is chosen by electors apportioned by state election outcomes or constitutional succession. He is not the "soveriegn".

There were those who wanted Washington to be the first King of the Americas...but being a Brutus he would have none of it.

And that's why George Washington is still #1 after all these years.

Had King George listened to his wiser council, America would have been spared so much grief....slavery would have ended decades before it did....no civil war....no hanging chad...

Effff that....then we'd be just like....Canada! How boring.

[bush_cheney2004]

I suppose you are, in your own self-protectively petulant way, now saying you agree with me about the actual resason for the rebellion. Good. I know you already see this now, but I'll reiterate: the colonists would have revolted regardless of whether or not the decisions that affected them were being made without their input by an imperial president or an imperial monarch. Ergo, monarchy itself, replete with the royal asses, was not the cause of the rebellion.

Hmmm... you seem to be handling both sides of the discussion now....and making little sense in either case. And to think that all that time and effort was wasted to draft the instruments of a fledgling nation for nothing. I wonder who they wrote it for...that is...declaring independence from WHAT?

[M.Dancer]

Bullpuckey....he is chosen by electors apportioned by state election outcomes or constitutional succession. He is not the "soveriegn".

Not wanting to get into sematics....Sparta elected thier Kings, USA elects theirs. The perogatives of the President are in keeping of the definition of sovereign...Head of State...power of veto, etc etc etc.....he is the King George the insurgents were hoping for.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not wanting to get into sematics....Sparta elected thier Kings, USA elects theirs. The perogatives of the President are in keeping of the definition of sovereign...Head of State...power of veto, etc etc etc.....he is the King George the insurgents were hoping for.

Of course you don't want to get into semantics...let's just generalize for the sake of simplicity! King George didn't have and was not subordinate to a written constitution.

[g_bambino]

Hmmm... you seem to be handling both sides of the discussion now....and making little sense in either case. And to think that all that time and effort was wasted to draft the instruments of a fledgling nation for nothing. I wonder who they wrote it for...that is...declaring independence from WHAT?

It's okay if you don't want to admit your line of thought ended up supporting mine, but it did. Whether or not the time and effort of the rebels was wasted is a completely different discussion, perhaps for another time.

[g_bambino]

Of course you don't want to get into semantics...let's just generalize for the sake of simplicity! King George didn't have and was not subordinate to a written constitution.

What does a written constitution have to do with elected monarchs?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's okay if you don't want to admit your line of thought ended up supporting mine, but it did. Whether or not the time and effort of the rebels was wasted is a completely different discussion, perhaps for another time.

I don't have any problem with self love....Woody Allen says it's best to have sex with someone you love.

Use of the word "rebel" is even more amusing and contrary to your point of view....but do continue.

[bush_cheney2004]

What does a written constitution have to do with elected monarchs?

Let's try another approach....what were the election results for King George III in 1760?

[g_bambino]

Let's try another approach....what were the election results for King George III in 1760?

Let's not; you're just leading on a wild goose chase. Again: what do written constitutions have to do with elected monarchs?

[jbg]

Give Me Librium or Give me Meth

-Anonymous

The office of President as conceived in the US is pretty much an elected constitutional Monarch. There were those who wanted Washington to be the first King of the Americas...but being a Brutus he would have none of it.

Agreed on the initial role of the President, as conceived by the Founders. Frankly, it still hasn't changed much. A President (except to a limited extent in Foreign Affairs) is bound, Liliputian style, by a Congress that has little heed for party discipline. Thus, even where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same party precious little happens in the US Government.

Had King George listened to his wiser council, America would have been spared so much grief....slavery would have ended decades before it did....no civil war....no hanging chad...

If either Britain's or America's King George tried to touch slavery at that point the result would have been very similar to the U.S. Civil War as ultimately fought between 1861 and 1865. The Deep South (meaning roughly from Richmond, Virginia on South) would not hae stood for abolition at that point.

As we learned at Bull Run, Lexington and Concord would have looked like a Sunday School picnic by comparison.

[jbg]

Did the colonies in America simply want it all at the expense of poor Britain.

***************

So what have you really got to be proud about by taking advantage of political mayhem that probably would have been rectified at a later time.

Or is there more to this than outright greed?

Basically the 13 Colonies were in a situation similar to the one that Alberta is in now, but without the factor of people feeling as "British" as many Albertans consider themselves "Canadian". The 13 Colonies were far more prosperous than Great Britain by the time of the Revolution, and Leafless is quite right to the extent that the Americans, having shed much blood helping the British fight the French & Indian Wars/Seven Years War, had no interest in being taxed to finance endless European wars. It is an open secret that the British government has always been short on money; thus the need to create a Parliament to assist in royal fund-raising. Once the Colonies had gone roughly sixty to one hundred years as net contributors to Britain, their eleemosynary instincts were at an end.

The romance of the American libertarians rising up against a totalitarian king is just the stuff of children's stories.

Quite true. Initially I learned that King George was a tyrant. I was shocked when I later learned that the very same Britain by that time had a functioning Parliament and regular elections. As an adult I would understand that some democratic template must have previously existed, since clearly the people who came over knew to vote for their own leaders. The French in New France, on the other hand, waited for instructions from Paris and from the Church, that waiting ultimately being their downfall.

Thus, I agree that the US separation was desirable, but not a rebellion against true tyranny.

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's not; you're just leading on a wild goose chase. Again: what do written constitutions have to do with elected monarchs?

OK....let's make it even simpler....please list all the constitutionally elected monarchs for the UK. The point of this exercise is to focus on the nature of the written US Constitution, not a patchwork of unwritten custom and royalty.

[M.Dancer]

OK....let's make it even simpler....please list all the constitutionally elected monarchs for the UK. The point of this exercise is to focus on the nature of the written US Constitution, not a patchwork of unwritten custom and royalty.

Not too off the mark....King Juan Carlos....the pretender....a modern king..selected...constitutional and can't stand Chavez

[g_bambino]

I don't have any problem with self love....Woody Allen says it's best to have sex with someone you love.

Use of the word "rebel" is even more amusing and contrary to your point of view....but do continue.

Whether you understand it or not, you've admitted it was the actions of a parliament and government that led to the revolution, not the existence of a monarch at its head. Take the crown off George's head and install him as president of the UR (United Republic) and nothing would have been different.

[g_bambino]

OK....let's make it even simpler....please list all the constitutionally elected monarchs for the UK. The point of this exercise is to focus on the nature of the written US Constitution, not a patchwork of unwritten custom and royalty.

Perhaps that's the problem here, you're making up your own points to the exercise as you go along. Let's start again:

In response to M.Dancer pointing out the election of Spartan kings, you said George III was not subordinate to a written constitution. This begs the question: what does a written constitution have to do with elected monarchs? M.Dancer debunked your statement that an elected monarch is an oxymoron; as does the head of state of Malaysia, the UAE, one of those of Andorra, and the Vatican. Written constiutions has nothing to do with it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whether you understand it or not, you've admitted it was the actions of a parliament and government that led to the revolution, not the existence of a monarch at its head. Take the crown off George's head and install him as president of the UR (United Republic) and nothing would have been different.

Nonsense....George III served reigned from 1760 until 1820. If it were even possible, the colonists may have prevailed with a different "president". What part of this reprehensible and privileged royalty do you not understand as detested by the "rebels"? Hell, we even modified our Constitution after FDR hung around too long.