A question for American's


CDNBear
#1
Is it true that in the Constitution, there is a section that says, if this government fails, dissolve it and start a new?

If so, why have you not? This one has been run by the military industrial complex for years. Greed, power and BS, has become the goal of the current system.
 
Curiosity
#2
Well well you are on a tear today CDN Bear

(1) - Putting your opinion in the form of a question is justification for yet another slam at the U.S.?

(2) - This from the citizen of a country which never ceases to criticize the U.S. for the late entry into both
WWI and WWII - both of which not being their "fight".... your charge of military rule is inaccurate.

(3) - This from a citizen of a country still tied to the apron strings of an expensive monarchy? You rarely get to choose your military actions....

(4) - This from a citizen of a country doing huge trade with the U.S.A.?

The U.S. Constitution is available on the internet - if you can find the pertinent section you wish to point out to us - feel free to do so. Why should anyone do your research to prove a point you are trying to make?

Hope the rest of your day gets better now that you have unloaded your bad mood....
Last edited by Curiosity; Oct 11th, 2006 at 10:11 AM..
 
CDNBear
#3
Um I was sincerely asking, though I can see where you are coming from, and I ment no offence. Hey I've taken flak here for my defence of my brother and sister American's.

The system is flawed, the hate you feel is from that flaw. That was more or less what I could have said , I guess.

And I agree with all your points BTW.

Well, I was kinda hoping t o engage in a lil thought provoking banter?
 
Toro
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

If so, why have you not? This one has been run by the military industrial complex for years. Greed, power and BS, has become the goal of the current system.

This is so 1960s.

Total sales of the US defense industry is less than total sales of Wal-Mart.
 
Toro
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Um I was sincerely asking, though I can see where you are coming from

This nifty Internet thing can answer all your questions!

www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....overview.html (external - login to view)
 
CDNBear
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

This nifty Internet thing can answer all your questions!

www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....overview.html (external - login to view)


I already knew the answer. Sometimes the best way to get a good conversation going is to use a hook to catch the knowledgable. Those who do not know and were unwilling to look, would simply pass on by. Those that do and/or will, sometimes add a new dimension.

Perhaps my opinion of American Government could have been left out, but hind sight is always 20/20.

Why is it though, whenever someone questions the validity of the Presidency or the powers that be, some of you get all touchy.

I've been accused of sucking up to American's, because of my defence of American's and America, and now you want to be all snotty because I question the status quo?

Ah yes Toro, I'm sure it is technically less then Wal-mart, it really is a shame that not all that money is not filtered by the IRS. It seldomly sees the shores of America or the inside of American bank vaults.

My sincere question was, why have you not?
 
CDNBear
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

This is so 1960s.

Total sales of the US defense industry is less than total sales of Wal-Mart.


Can you back that up?
 
Curiosity
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Is it true that in the Constitution, there is a section that says, if this government fails, dissolve it and start a new?

If so, why have you not? This one has been run by the military industrial complex for years. Greed, power and BS, has become the goal of the current system.

CDNBear

Your post this morning took me by surprise because I thought you were one of the people here who gave us a chance rather than shutting the doors refusing to read....

Your apology is accepted gladly and mine is extended for reading you the wrong way..... but your questions were asked
(in my opinion) as the beginning of a frustration from you with the U.S.

You have made some heavy charges, ie: the U.S. government has failed - therefore start it anew - it appears in the Constitution somewhere..... The government is still operating as of my writing this.

Greed power and BS has become the goal? How convenient to overlook the good done by the U.S. and the huge amounts of money and manpower and yes even peacekeeping by individual groups - but we don't advertise it in order to receive praise - it is just done and expected to be done. We share what we have.

Anyway - I in no way wish to prevent you from asking all the questions you want people to answer - just give people an opportunity to answer the question.
 
CDNBear
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

CDNBear

Your post this morning took me by surprise because I thought you were one of the people here who gave us a chance rather than shutting the doors refusing to read....

Your apology is accepted gladly and mine is extended for reading you the wrong way..... but your questions were asked
(in my opinion) as the beginning of a frustration from you with the U.S.

You have made some heavy charges, ie: the U.S. government has failed - therefore start it anew - it appears in the Constitution somewhere..... The government is still operating as of my writing this.

Greed power and BS has become the goal? How convenient to overlook the good done by the U.S. and the huge amounts of money and manpower and yes even peacekeeping by individual groups - but we don't advertise it in order to receive praise - it is just done and expected to be done. We share what we have.

Anyway - I in no way wish to prevent you from asking all the questions you want people to answer - just give people an opportunity to answer the question.


And yes I stand humbled. I can see wherethe reaction came from, my harsh opinion.

I do feel though, that the current government has failed to up hold the values upon which the Nation was founded. Truth, Justice and Liberty for all. It seems that those words apply only to the power managers. The fact that at one point the US was a friend to the Middle East, before the petrolium age became so aggressive.

As scathing as I was in my OP, I hold no ill will to American's.
 
CDNBear
#10
I would like to submit this as a bit of proof of what I am reffering to.

httpwwwyoutubecomwatchvMoRjbIQMXGQampeurl



It quite interesting when the an alleged criminal can legislate his crime away. I do not actually believe that a crime was committed, in fact I have no problems with what happend at Gitmo. But this is a fine example of why I feel the system as it is, has failed.
 
Curiosity
#11
CDNBear

But we have no comparison that Canada would have been as "gracious" if they had to harbor criminals who were bent on more killing....

You are in a safe place here as you have nothing to compare it with only your "assurance" that Canada would have done better with these people.

When did Canada offer to put them up and interrogate them?

If you do nothing - how can you criticize those who do?
 
CDNBear
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CuriosityView Post

CDNBear

But we have no comparison that Canada would have been as "gracious" if they had to harbor criminals who were bent on more killing....

You are in a safe place here as you have nothing to compare it with only your "assurance" that Canada would have done better with these people.

When did Canada offer to put them up and interrogate them?

If you do nothing - how can you criticize those who do?

I think you missed my point, I take no issue with how they were treated at all. I wasn't critisizing the actions taken at Gitmo, just the actions of the Prez in the after math.

What I was trying to say, was. Although I do not feel that any crimes were committed at Gitmo, and therefore, no one need be held accountable(oh I fear that may come back and haunt me). Many have said that the leaders of the US should be. Thus have called for war crime charges to be levied against Bush and his Government. But now, even though Bush and company feel they have broken no law, they are enacting legislation to protect themselves from criminal charges. That was my point, that is how I feel the system is failed, if he truly were guilty, he can and is poised to legislate it all away.

How can you be allowed to do that?
 
jimmoyer
#13
A Cartoon's Portrait of America


By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A19

The trouble started in Denmark, a faraway country of which we know little. It revolves around cartoons, an art form we associate with light humor. It has sparked riots in Surabaya, Tehran, Peshawar and rural Somalia, places where there aren't many Americans in the best of times. Perhaps that explains the muted American reactions to the violence, anger and deaths -- nine so far -- sparked by a dozen Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Nevertheless, the controversy has exposed a few less attractive political undercurrents in America, too:

Schadenfreude -- or, rather, Americans feeling just a teensy bit relieved that Europeans are the object of flag burnings and riots instead of themselves. To my embarrassment, I felt an involuntary twinge of this myself when I read of cartoon-inspired riots outside a Norwegian NATO base in Afghanistan. In Oslo last year, I was told by a well-traveled, well-educated Norwegian that "America is the most dangerous country in the world." (I wonder if he thinks so now. ) But I also hear a note in the sanctimonious State Department communique, which proclaimed that "inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." Actually, the European newspapers weren't trying to incite hatred; they were making a point about their own laws and traditions. Were we rushing to look good in the Muslim world at a moment when Europeans, for once, look worse?

Hypocrisy of the cultural left. Dozens of American newspapers, including The Post, have stated that they won't reprint the cartoons because, in the words of one self-righteous editorial, they prefer to "refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols." Fair enough -- but is this always true? An excellent domestic parallel is the fracas that followed the 1989 publication of "Piss Christ," a photograph of Christ on a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine. That picture -- a work of art that received a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts -- led to congressional denunciations, protests and letter-writing campaigns.

At the time, many U.S. newspapers that refused last week to publish the Danish cartoons -- the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe (but apparently not The Post) -- did publish "Piss Christ." The photographer, Andres Serrano, enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame, even appearing in a New York Times fashion spread. The picture was exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art and elsewhere. The moral: While we are nervous about gratuitously offending believers in distant, underdeveloped countries, we don't mind gratuitously offending believers at home.

Hypocrisy of the right-wing blogosphere. Remember the controversy over Newsweek and the Koran? Last year Newsweek printed an allegation about mistreatment of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base that -- although strikingly similar to interrogation techniques actually used to intimidate Muslims at Guantanamo -- was not substantiated by an official government investigation. It hardly mattered: Abroad, Muslim politicians and clerics promoted and exaggerated the Koran story, just as they are now promoting and exaggerating the Danish cartoon story. The result was rioting and violence on a scale similar to the rioting and violence of the past week.

But although that controversy was every bit as manipulated as this one, self-styled U.S. "conservatives" blamed not cynical politicians and clerics but Newsweek for (accidentally) inciting violence in the Muslim world: "Newsweek lied, people died." Worse, much of the commentary implied that Newsweek was not only wrong to make a mistake (which it was) but also that the magazine was wrong to investigate the alleged misconduct of U.S. soldiers. Logically, the bloggers should now be attacking the Danish newspaper for (less accidentally) inciting violence in the Muslim world. Oddly enough, though, I've heard no cries of "Jyllands-Posten insulted, people died." The moral is: We defend press freedom if it means Danish cartoonists' right to caricature Muhammad; we don't defend press freedom if it means the mainstream media's right to investigate the U.S. government.

Of course, some good may come out of this story, even in this country. If nothing else, this controversy should bring an end to that naive, charming and sadly incorrect American theory of international relations that "the more we all learn about one another, the less we will fight." Gradually, the Islamic world is learning that we don't respect religion in the same manner they do. Slowly, we are learning that they feel differently about the printed word, and the printed picture, from us. And somehow, I've got a feeling that this new knowledge will be not the beginning of understanding but the inspiration for more violence.

applebaumanne@yahoo.com (external - login to view)
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

This is so 1960s.

Total sales of the US defense industry is less than total sales of Wal-Mart.

Don't bother trying to back that up. I know for a fact that Wal-mart did not make more then $333,337,735,154 in last two years.
 
CDNBear
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

A Cartoon's Portrait of America
By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A19
The trouble started in Denmark, a faraway country of which we know little. It revolves around cartoons, an art form we associate with light humor. It has sparked riots in Surabaya, Tehran, Peshawar and rural Somalia, places where there aren't many Americans in the best of times. Perhaps that explains the muted American reactions to the violence, anger and deaths -- nine so far -- sparked by a dozen Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Nevertheless, the controversy has exposed a few less attractive political undercurrents in America, too:
∑ Schadenfreude -- or, rather, Americans feeling just a teensy bit relieved that Europeans are the object of flag burnings and riots instead of themselves. To my embarrassment, I felt an involuntary twinge of this myself when I read of cartoon-inspired riots outside a Norwegian NATO base in Afghanistan. In Oslo last year, I was told by a well-traveled, well-educated Norwegian that "America is the most dangerous country in the world." (I wonder if he thinks so now. ) But I also hear a note in the sanctimonious State Department communique, which proclaimed that "inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." Actually, the European newspapers weren't trying to incite...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Maybe I missed it, but what exactly does that all have to do with the reconstuction of American Government?

But I urge everyone to go watch that CNN, report, it is the most intelegnt thing I have ever seen on that station. I also stand by my assertion, based on the fact that a sitting President is trying to absolve himself of a percieved wrong doing, via Congress.

Please tell me how the system has not failed, or at the very least in its death throws.
Last edited by CDNBear; Oct 11th, 2006 at 04:00 PM..
 
Gonzo
#16
How does the United States dissolve the government? Wouldn't they have to impeach the president?
If the President has committed a crime or has lied then they impeach him. Thatís what they tried to do to Clinton and Nixon. Is that dissolving the government? I'm not sure how their system works.
 
CDNBear
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by GonzoView Post

How does the United States dissolve the government? Wouldn't they have to impeach the president?
If the President has committed a crime or has lied then they impeach him. Thatís what they tried to do to Clinton and Nixon. Is that dissolving the government? I'm not sure how their system works.

I read it years ago, and I've been reading it on and off all day (slow day, very bored) to find the exact chapter.

In what I can remember, it states that if this form of governance should fail, dissolve it and start a new one. Or something along those lines.

I and about 4 dozen militias take that to mena, if the government that is in place now, no longer lives for the people of the people, literally tear it down and try some other style.

I would go to the militia websites and find easily I'm sure, but at the moment, I'm trying to avoid being on the FBI's watch list, lol.

Did you watch the video Gonzo? I thought you might actually get a kick out of it.
 
Riyko
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Is it true that in the Constitution, there is a section that says, if this government fails, dissolve it and start a new?

If so, why have you not? This one has been run by the military industrial complex for years. Greed, power and BS, has become the goal of the current system.

How has the US Government failed the US? I don't like the government and I know what goes on in the US, but some reasons or valid points why that section of the consitiution should be acted upon now?
 
CDNBear
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by RiykoView Post

How has the US Government failed the US? I don't like the government and I know what goes on in the US, but some reasons or valid points why that section of the consitiution should be acted upon now?

why have you not?

I think that's what I put forth as a question.

I already know why I would, the President is trying to pass legislation to absolve himself, your foriegn policy is turning America into the perverbial global whipping boy, the system smacks of corruption on almost all levels, only the wealthy have the ablity to run for higher office, do I really need to continue.

As much as my OP, was scathing, and I apologise. Look at it from the outside worlds perspictive. Most of us dislike our governments, some actually loath them. Some live in tyranny. You, the strongest Nation in the world, land of the free, home of the brave, have to ablity to resolve your issues and turn America around, reign her in as it were, and you chose not to? It seems inconcievable to those of us that would love to have that clause in our respective constitutions.
 
I think not
#20
CDNBear

You are talking about the Declaration of Independence, not the United States Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution to dissolve the government. The President can be removed from office after he/she has been impeached. Impeachment does NOT mean (contrary to popular belief) removal from office. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.

The Declaration of Independence states;

Quote:


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a...

Quote has been trimmed
What you are suggesting is another revolution.

In addition, you claim only the rich and powerful run for office. This has not been true for the Presidency or any other public office. You need to check your resources.
 
Toro
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Can you back that up?

I can, and I have here.

However, I don't know where the thread is now.

And it takes a bit of work. Since I'm feeling lazy, if you wish to know, you can figure out yourself.

This is how you do it.

Almost all defense companies are publicly listed. Go their web pages and download their financial data. Add all the revenues up then compare that to WalMart.
 
Daz_Hockey
#22
agh, half that was nicked from the magna carta. It's all about fancy idealism "all men are created equal", is that a paradox or an oxymoron?. we all know this to be "set in the time it was written", .i.e. most of the fella's who wrote that were slave owners and very wealthy traders thank you very much.

Why would the US ever remove the system it has?, why?, it suits the purpose for which it was intended, make the traders (moden-day corporations) richer and the poorer poorer. I have nothing against American people, I really don't. But you have to admit, the similarities between the declaration of independence and the magna carta are strikingly similar.

the first one is about the rich barrons (and not actually the people) sitting down the king and forcing him to agree to their whims. the second?, wel rich *traders (business is power after all) sitting down the old establishment and telling them the score.

Nothing is ever new....it's like asking the barrons or traders why they haven't got rid of the current system that has proved oh so profitable...why the heck would they?
 
I think not
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

agh, half that was nicked from the magna carta. It's all about fancy idealism "all men are created equal", is that a paradox or an oxymoron?. we all know this to be "set in the time it was written", .i.e. most of the fella's who wrote that were slave owners and very wealthy traders thank you very much.

I can't even remember how many times we've been down this particular road, and after agreeing, you still spout the same nonsense over and over and over again. Viewing history with a contemporary eye carries a political agenda and nothing more. As for your "fancy" reference, I don't doubt it's incomprehensible to you. All "men" aren't created equal in the UK. Royal family ring a bell?

Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

Why would the US ever remove the system it has?, why?, it suits the purpose for which it was intended, make the traders (moden-day corporations) richer and the poorer poorer. I have nothing against American people, I really don't. But you have to admit, the similarities between the declaration of independence and the magna carta are strikingly similar.

Ya, we all live in huts in the US, we keep our poor folk poorer because its in the best interests of corporations to smother their customer base. Try again, and this time try and think.
 
Gonzo
#24
Great video. It looks like the Bush administration knows that they committed war crimes and are trying to cover themselves. Americans don't stand for this kind of behaviour. They'll want Bush to face justice. Maybe not the death penalty but he should be held accountable for any wrong doing.
I often rant against the US but it's always against the government, not the people. Bush lost the popular vote first time around and barely got in a second time. Most Americans didn't want him as their president. I think that all the lies and crimes of the Bush administration will come out.
 
Daz_Hockey
#25
As usual, your taking it as a personal swipe. All men were not created equal at that time, and Jefferson owned slaves, washington etc. Why defend a lie?. it's simple. Lincoln knew it, why don't you?.

You know as well as I there are similarities, I dont buy (and actually neither do a lot of Americans) the simple "we sat em down and demanded everyone was free" stuff, there HAS to hve been more to it than that.

And huts?, have you ever been to Corfe Mullen? or Runnymede?, they are NOT huts, I can assure you of that. Besides, the setting doesn't matter, the situation does. You KNOW most of the signees of the declaration were pretty wealthy off of trading and such-like. As were the Barrons who wrote the Magna Carta.

The US Government fully acknowledge the part the Magna Carta has to play in the Declaration, I'm sure it's circumstance have been seen to be similar. THIS is the point that irritates me, you point out I "think the british empire is all sweetness and light", which I don't, and you POINT BLANK REFUSE to believe Washington and co could be anything other than....to quote Jim "Warrior" Hellwig "the greatest men that god ever put on the face of the earth"....which they certainly were not.

This is not a slight at the USA. this is a truth. They were very wealthy traders, and what they did, in a lot of ways was very similar, and like the magna carta, the declaration has been held aloft as almost mythical when in fact it is nothing of the sort.
 
Toro
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Don't bother trying to back that up. I know for a fact that Wal-mart did not make more then $333,337,735,154 in last two years.

Actually, this was easy to find.

The defense companies did not "make" that much.

WalMart's revenues last year was $315.6 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WMT&annual (external - login to view)

Lockheed Martin had $37.2 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=LMT&annual (external - login to view)

Northrop Grumman was $30.7 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=noc&annual (external - login to view)

General Dynamics had $21.2 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GD&annual (external - login to view)

Raytheon had $21.9 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=rTn&annual (external - login to view)

Boeing was $54.8 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=noc&annual (external - login to view)

of which roughly half are defense systems

yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/...3564&Type=HTML (external - login to view)

Those are the five largest defense contractors in the United States. No one else comes close.

For example the number six defense company is L-3, with total sales of $9.4 billion.

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=lll&annual (external - login to view)

Those six add up to $147.8 billion, less than half the sales of Wal-Mart.

Total GDP of the United States is $13.2 trillion. Those six companies sales accounted for 1.1% of US GDP.

http://bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm

And since GDP is a measurement of value added, not sales, the contribution of defense to the US economy is even less.
Last edited by Toro; Oct 11th, 2006 at 07:33 PM..Reason: Added data
 
I think not
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Daz_HockeyView Post

As usual, your taking it as a personal swipe. All men were not created equal at that time, and Jefferson owned slaves, washington etc. Why defend a lie?. it's simple. Lincoln knew it, why don't you?.
You know as well as I there are similarities, I dont buy (and actually neither do a lot of Americans) the simple "we sat em down and demanded everyone was free" stuff, there HAS to hve been more to it than that.
And huts?, have you ever been to Corfe Mullen? or Runnymede?, they are NOT huts, I can assure you of that. Besides, the setting doesn't matter, the situation does. You KNOW most of the signees of the declaration were pretty wealthy off of trading and such-like. As were the Barrons who wrote the Magna Carta.
The US Government fully acknowledge the part the Magna Carta has to play in the Declaration, I'm sure it's circumstance have been seen to be similar. THIS is the point that irritates me, you point out I "think the british empire is all sweetness and light", which I don't, and you POINT BLANK REFUSE to believe Washington and co could be anything other than....to quote Jim "Warrior" Hellwig "the greatest men that god ever put on the face of the earth"....which they certainly were not.
This is not a slight at the USA. this is a truth. They were very wealthy traders, and what they did, in a lot of ways was very similar, and like the magna carta, the declaration has been held aloft as almost mythical when in...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Daz, quite frankly I'm tired repeating to you the same issues over and over again. Believe what you want, I can honestly care less.
 
Daz_Hockey
#28
And you likewise.

I just don't follow blindly and unquestionably.

it's as simple as that.
 
CDNBear
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by I think notView Post

CDNBear

You are talking about the Declaration of Independence, not the United States Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution to dissolve the government. The President can be removed from office after he/she has been impeached. Impeachment does NOT mean (contrary to popular belief) removal from office. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office.

The Declaration of Independence states;



What you are suggesting is another revolution.

In addition, you claim only the rich and powerful run for office. This has not been true for the Presidency or any other public office. You need to check your resources.

Thanx ITN, my bad!
 
CDNBear
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by ToroView Post

I can, and I have here.

However, I don't know where the thread is now.

And it takes a bit of work. Since I'm feeling lazy, if you wish to know, you can figure out yourself.

This is how you do it.

Almost all defense companies are publicly listed. Go their web pages and download their financial data. Add all the revenues up then compare that to WalMart.

I beat ya to it, and you are wrong.
 

Similar Threads

5
Question...
by tooker | Jan 27th, 2008
no new posts