Anger is a gift (Happy 3rd Anniversary!)

[wendybeth]

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textbook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

I read many newspapers, blogs, talk shows, etc. I like to sample a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints. I do not form my viewpoints just because Laura Ingraham happens to say it. She has been the person who I gravitate towards because my beliefs are generally in line with hers.

I have a great political science professor who has taught me more than any other professor I have had. He's absolutely brilliant.

And in general, I end up leaning towards the conservatives on most issues? Why? Because in general they offer up substance. Not just rhetoric, but actual substance. I find it difficult to back many of the liberal positions on issues where in the end they had egg smeared in their face because of all the foul-drawl that is put forward. It seems like their bigger agenda is to attack Republicans. They have no plan, no strategy. Chuck Schumer and "San Fran Nan" have even admitted this. Articles have been written about it. I certainly can't back people with no plan (or if a plan is offered, it's pie-in-the-sky, like Murtha's).

And the dictionary definition you posted proves that America is not imperialistic.

1. We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.
2. We haven't taken over Iraq to make "territorial acquisitions". And we aren't imposing our power in the sense that we don't have control over the politics. To the economy, some extent. But by and large, the Iraqis are voting on their own and establishing the economy on their own. We are nudging them in the right direction. We're not looking to dominate Iraq.

By the very definition of imperialism which you have provided, we are not imperialistic. My prof went into great detail one lecture about how the United States doesn't fit the requirements of being imperialistic when I took his International Relations course last year. This year he went on a tirade about how simple minded the people who say that Bush is like Hitler after a student went and said that to him. That incident occured over three weeks ago, and he still gets riled up about it.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by The Shadoe

We are not an empire. I beg of you to find any trace of colonies.

Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, Puerto Rico. Since the Supreme Court just denied Puerto Ricans the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections, what are they - other than a colony? How is a "territory" with no citizenship rights for its denizens anything other than a colony?

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth.

1. nation or its people: a nation or its people considered as a political entity

2. republic: a nation or state in which the people govern

3. association of states: a group of states that have formed an association for the political and economic benefit of all members

4. people with common interest: a group of people linked by something that they all have in common

Technically, it's not a colony since we pretty much let them do their own thing. We're not trying to impose control over them. Anyhow, they seem to be content with the way things are. In 1998 the House passed a bill calling for elections to decide the island's permanent status. They chose to keep it the way it is.

Puerto Rico is the largest commonwealth of the United States. The rest are small islands, which again, are pretty much left to their own devices. That doesn't qualify as an empire, and certainly doesn't prove that the United States is imperialistic.

Get out of the books for a moment. Empires of the 21st century are not the Empires of antiquity. The United States is an imperial power by every measure of modern sense.

What is the "modern sense"? Please pin down a definition, and how the United States fits into it. If there is a "Modern sense" then maybe we should be looking at a new term instead of trying to apply a term that doesn't fit...

[Gemini Cricket]

The best part about Bush's mess ups is that I get to sit back and say 'Well, I didn't vote for him.'


I've totally wasted my breath talking about Ann Coulter in the past. I think there's a lot of self-hate there.

[MickeyLumbo]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

The best part about Bush's mess ups is that I get to sit back and say 'Well, I didn't vote for him.'


.

well i did, after careful thought and sorting out my priorities and realizing that the nation's security was a top priority for me... everything else that was (and still is) important to me seemed moot if terrorist attacks 9or potential of) continued to bring the country to it's knees.

but, giving the job of security to company's with strong ties to foreign governments, who in turn have ties to terrorism, makes no sense to me.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by MickeyLumbo

well i did, after careful thought and sorting out my priorities and realizing that the nation's security was a top priority for me...

Originally Posted by GWB 3/21/06

"You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life."

A man who thought oceans protected us, a man who apparently never heard of Pearl fvcking Harbor, a man who allowed the executions of numerous people when he was governor of Texas despite being unaware that killers can destroy innocent life, a man who was asleep at the switch on 9/11/01, would not be my first, second, or ten billionth choice to protect our country.