quote:

ORIGINAL: rlj

quote:

The economy, the war and anything else one might claim as important in this election are simply diversions from the real prize... being able to appoint Supreme Court Justices. If I were John McCaine I would pound that home over and over and over. If the democrats win this time, the Constitution will just another relic of the past, to be ignored for present day fads.

I don't think this is what puts the brakes on socialism. The recent rebate check was a redistribution of wealth that the court didn't do anything about. The earmarks are a redistribution of wealth. Medicaid is. We can go on and on but the court can't stop laws that are put on the books unless there is some kind of a challenge and then that challenge has to work its way up and then you have to win the challenge. These are all laws passed by our elected leaders and we the people seem awfully content to keep on electing and re-electing them. Once in awhile a case comes up like the one allowing cities to seize blighted areas by eminent domain but not many do.

The SCOTUS is more important to us but time is on the side of the left. They control the education of judges, lawyers and lawmakers. They believe in making laws from the bench as often as possible in their rulings as opposed to making rulings on the case at hand. Even more importantly however they CHALLENGE laws constantly. They take legislation and challenge it, fight it, work it over and twist it. If law isn't challenged in court it can't be rewritten. If on the right we believe that laws shouldn't originate in the courts and we don't seek that method we're at a disadvantage because we're getting fewer things on the books. What is also important is that on the right we need to start passing laws that challenge the things we dislike and keep pounding it home until we start to see the changes we want to see. Having a SCOTUS of 9 pro life conservatives doesn't mean anything if someone somewhere doesn't pass legislation that gets blocked that can work its way up through to the SCOTUS to get a ruling on. We currently have for example 7 Republican appointed SCOTUS Justices. From 2001 through 2007 the number was 6 or 7 plus Republicans had control of the White House, both Houses of Congress and control of several states. Why wasn't some kind of conservative agenda passed into law, challenged in the courts so it could work its way up? The SCOTUS is just the icing. It's real good but if the cake stinks and is moldy does it matter much how good the icing is?

There is no guarantee what kind of Justice a Republican will nominate as opposed to a Democrat. A Democrat would never nominate a Thomas, Scalia or Roberts. Republicans have given us Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor. I recall the 1994 election when Rush Limbaugh on his TV show showed a clip of Teddy Kennedy going "We've been here for 24 years (or maybe it was 18) but if you could just give us one more term all of the things we're trying to achieve are just oh so close!" And I laughed with Rush thinking exactly how many more years does this guy really need??? So we've had 7 Justices appointed by Republicans in 28 years, 2 by democrats and I have given up already. How many more years do Republicans need?

As to the question I posed about "If you don't want socialism..." I believe that as long as our political system is this two party system we make a choice. The bandwagon to socialism is on its way and can't be stopped. Do we want to get there in 3rd gear (Republicans) or get there in Overdrive (Democrats). Either way both parties are gonna get us there. They both for example want our money to distribute the only question is to who. It used to be a how much question but if one objectively looks at the budgets especially from 2001 through 2007 I don't believe it matters which one anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: relady

Am I the only one that noticed that article on Sweden was from 1971????? Can you find something newer to support the same issue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

The fact that we have no neighbors is due to definitive action on our part. If the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to replace the weak Articles of Confederation with The Constitution it is entirely possible all of our states would have been tiny nations. Then we would have been just like Europe, albeit not having to worry about Asian & African neighbors (who also left Europe alone more or less but Europe didn't leave them alone). If we had not taken all the land west of the 13 colonies via war & purchase we would have ended up with neighbors one way or another.

You are right in saying that America has been fortunate. I propose to you that no successful enterprise has been without good fortune. At the same time if that good fortune is squandered then there will be no success. Every successful enterprise has also had men and women who make the right decisions and take advantage of fortune's good hand to rise to greater heights. America did that. Is there any level of success America could achieve in which we would deserve credit for it?

And if we blow it bad luck won't be to blame. It works both ways.

Luck is a refuge for the weak, an excuse for history's losers. I try not to use the word because of what it has become (an excuse for failure and a club to beat down the success of others) but sometimes its unavoidable in normal discourse. I haven't found a suitable replacement for good luck, most of the others seem to have too much "gravitas". The closest I've come is best wishes

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

We are trying to get you to see that in the early years of our nation, it was pretty much a vast wilderness. The only people around were some primitive Indian tribes. There were no cities that had existed for centuries, no roads. Settlers, by sheer determination, will power, and the grace of God forged small settlements out of the resources available, while fighting off Indian attacks, coping with the weather with only primitive shelters, and working the land with sometimes just their bare hands to grow crops. Now I'll grant you that there was slave labor involved, but only the wealthiest had slaves. The average guy and his family did the work himself and with his neighbors. He put in long hours of back breaking labor and gradually the efforts paid off with food, shelter, and the beginnings of conveniences and comforts.

These people didn't look to the government for assistance or handouts. Help was obtained from family, friends, neighbors, and the church. They stuck together and formed communities and colonies. Then, when England wanted more and more of the wealth being generated here in the new world, many of the colonists finally rebelled. By now the powerful British army and navy was already here, at least in some numbers, so we weren't completely isolated, as you try to point out. There were also the Indians, the French, the Spanish, and probably small numbers of others here. So we were not entirely alone at that point.

There wasn't a lot of luck involved in any of this. We suffered and we kept on, overcoming whatever stood in our way. Now, if that's what you call "fuzzy grit," I guess that's your right, but you are offending many Americans who have worked and fought and died for your right to express that opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

Great post Dave. Its another example of how America earned its status as the superpower. Lets not forget those Revolutionary soldiers and commanders who endured unimaginable hardship (Valley Forge anyone) and fought against incredible odds to hold out until the French sent aid and we could turn the tide. By the way, we had to negotiate for that aid and prove we had a chance before we got it, no luck involved there either.

Many people want to discredit America due to their jealousy. Its the same as with anything else that is successful, they resent it. I will say I think the poster we are responding to is not an example of that but rather he (or she) has come to this opinion honestly. Maybe with some help from America haters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huangshan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

The fact that we have no neighbors is due to definitive action on our part. If the Founding Fathers hadn't decided to replace the weak Articles of Confederation with The Constitution it is entirely possible all of our states would have been tiny nations. Then we would have been just like Europe, albeit not having to worry about Asian & African neighbors (who also left Europe alone more or less but Europe didn't leave them alone). If we had not taken all the land west of the 13 colonies via war & purchase we would have ended up with neighbors one way or another.

You are right in saying that America has been fortunate. I propose to you that no successful enterprise has been without good fortune. At the same time if that good fortune is squandered then there will be no success. Every successful enterprise has also had men and women who make the right decisions and take advantage of fortune's good hand to rise to greater heights. America did that. Is there any level of success America could achieve in which we would deserve credit for it?

And if we blow it bad luck won't be to blame. It works both ways.

Luck is a refuge for the weak, an excuse for history's losers. I try not to use the word because of what it has become (an excuse for failure and a club to beat down the success of others) but sometimes its unavoidable in normal discourse. I haven't found a suitable replacement for good luck, most of the others seem to have too much "gravitas". The closest I've come is best wishes

I'm saying that America is blessed with a lot of land and a lot of good resources, a lot of immigrants wanting to have a better life, and no aggressive or strong neighbors. When you put those three things together, you're going to have, barring catastrophic failure, a pretty good recipe for success. There is no "grit" (or whatever) required. I think a lot of arguments about American ruggedness are overblown. They are, I'm sure, partly informed by our immigrant culture, but I think that's about the extent of it. I don't attribute a lot of our success to anything extra-ordinary, nor do I see a need to. The factors that I mentioned are sufficient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

We are trying to get you to see that in the early years of our nation, it was pretty much a vast wilderness. The only people around were some primitive Indian tribes. There were no cities that had existed for centuries, no roads. Settlers, by sheer determination, will power, and the grace of God forged small settlements out of the resources available, while fighting off Indian attacks, coping with the weather with only primitive shelters, and working the land with sometimes just their bare hands to grow crops. Now I'll grant you that there was slave labor involved, but only the wealthiest had slaves. The average guy and his family did the work himself and with his neighbors. He put in long hours of back breaking labor and gradually the efforts paid off with food, shelter, and the beginnings of conveniences and comforts.

These people didn't look to the government for assistance or handouts. Help was obtained from family, friends, neighbors, and the church. They stuck together and formed communities and colonies. Then, when England wanted more and more of the wealth being generated here in the new world, many of the colonists finally rebelled. By now the powerful British army and navy was already here, at least in some numbers, so we weren't completely isolated, as you try to point out. There were also the Indians, the French, the Spanish, and probably small numbers of others here. So we were not entirely alone at that point.

There wasn't a lot of luck involved in any of this. We suffered and we kept on, overcoming whatever stood in our way. Now, if that's what you call "fuzzy grit," I guess that's your right, but you are offending many Americans who have worked and fought and died for your right to express that opinion.

In the early years, yes, America was a vast wilderness. As I noted, America's a place with a lot of space, a lot of natural resources, and no strong enemies nearby. That's what is was since the beginning. I don't really see the point of the stories of individual hardship. Hardship has been endured the world over, for a variety of reasons. Americans had the significant advantage of not having similarly advanced neighbors who were particularly territorial.

"Luck" is having a lot of land, lots of natural resources, and no significant enemies nearby. All fortuitous things that we didn't have a lot (if anything) to do with. We lucked out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

Great post Dave. Its another example of how America earned its status as the superpower. Lets not forget those Revolutionary soldiers and commanders who endured unimaginable hardship (Valley Forge anyone) and fought against incredible odds to hold out until the French sent aid and we could turn the tide. By the way, we had to negotiate for that aid and prove we had a chance before we got it, no luck involved there either.

Many people want to discredit America due to their jealousy. Its the same as with anything else that is successful, they resent it. I will say I think the poster we are responding to is not an example of that but rather he (or she) has come to this opinion honestly. Maybe with some help from America haters.

Almost every great country is forged in similarly great conflict. Hardship isn't particularly unique, either.

Now... I really like America. I'm a fan of its ideals, and (largely) its form of government. I lived there for most of my life, and I still consider my best friends and the best people I know to be the ones I made in America. I love the "melting pot" aspect of America. I think that's my favorite part, actually. The wonderful fusion of people from all over the world. I regret that I didn't spend more time on the coasts while I was there.

America was born with a lot of advantages. It's like a handsome guy being the son of a couple of above-average parents. There's no reason to hate that kind of guy, really there's a lot to envy. It's a mistake to think that he somehow earned his good looks or his good parents though. He got lucky. Good for him. If he does good with the gift he was given, even better. If he squanders that luck, shame on him. But I see no reason to call serendipity anything other than what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

No point in debating anything with you. You refuse to consider anything other than the pap you've been fed from the socialist schools. Given all your words from the many threads you are involved in, I can't understand why you say "really like America." From all I've read of your posts, you certainly don't seem to.

quote:

It's like a handsome guy being the son of a couple of above-average parents. There's no reason to hate that kind of guy, really there's a lot to envy. It's a mistake to think that he somehow earned his good looks or his good parents though. He got lucky. Good for him. If he does good with the gift he was given, even better. If he squanders that luck, shame on him. But I see no reason to call serendipity anything other than what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

Except the handsome guy with the good parents you described didn't just "do good", he rose up to be the biggest icon in the world at his chosen profession in his time and changed that profession itself to something far better. And yes he did do stuff that was immoral in his rise but none of his competitors were likely to do anything different if they were in his position.

I think the greatest achievement of America is its ability to stay together as one unified nation, especially before the 20th century. If we were not able to do that we would be several smaller nations and all that stuff about having no neighbors woould be out the window as well as the combining of all those resources you keep talking about. This is the point you have not addressed.

Answer this: if it was so easy for America to become the superpower it was given its location (and yes I admit again that it was a big advantage, nobody said it wasn't) why didn't the Native Americans get unified and do it? They weren't interested. Fine but that was their choice. Why weren't the French or Spanish colonists able to forge nations here like the British Colonists did? They were here also. Why are all those Spanish descendant nations in South America & Central America separate instead of together like us. Why is Brazil, who has quite a bit of land and no really threatening neighbors (cause they'd be our neighbors too albeit a little further away), nowhere near us in terms of national achievement?

Thanks for the spirited discussion.

quote:

The Native Americans often did get unified, but at the same time, we often played them off against each other. For one shining example of unity, recall the Cherokee Indian confederation of the U.S. Southeast. The Cherokees were originally divided into 30 or 40 independent chiefdoms, each consisting of a village of about 400 people. Long story short, the Cherokees eventually became literate and adopted a written constitution.

quote:

After the Articles of Confederation, only threats, like Shay's Rebellion and unresolved war debt, overcame the ex-colonies' extreme reluctance to sacrifice autonomy.

quote:

These relatively minor problems paled in comparison to the internal and external problems that our neighbors would deal with.

quote:

Brazil started off as a refuge for people fleeing Napoleon, and established itself as an empire shortly after (with an emperor). Not a good start, and they suffered from political instability for a long time.

quote:

but I do dispute that if we had been surrounded by neighbors similar to almost any European nation, the Fathers' experiment would have been obliterated by the British or nearby opportunists eager for land and power.

quote:

This factor of relative isolation and relative resource wealth comes up time and again in American history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

The Native Americans often did get unified, but at the same time, we often played them off against each other. For one shining example of unity, recall the Cherokee Indian confederation of the U.S. Southeast. The Cherokees were originally divided into 30 or 40 independent chiefdoms, each consisting of a village of about 400 people. Long story short, the Cherokees eventually became literate and adopted a written constitution.

quote:

After the Articles of Confederation, only threats, like Shay's Rebellion and unresolved war debt, overcame the ex-colonies' extreme reluctance to sacrifice autonomy.

quote:

These relatively minor problems paled in comparison to the internal and external problems that our neighbors would deal with.

quote:

Brazil started off as a refuge for people fleeing Napoleon, and established itself as an empire shortly after (with an emperor). Not a good start, and they suffered from political instability for a long time.

quote:

but I do dispute that if we had been surrounded by neighbors similar to almost any European nation, the Fathers' experiment would have been obliterated by the British or nearby opportunists eager for land and power.

quote:

This factor of relative isolation and relative resource wealth comes up time and again in American history.

They were here longer than we were, why didn't they enjoy the inevitable rise our location has brought? Probably because they weren't as land hungry (a choice), not as technologically advanced (a weakness) and not unified (a mistake as it happens). None of those are bad luck, they are choices they made that we didn't. We were land hungry (morally questionable at best often times but it was a choice that led to our growth), we had superior technology (an achievement, not dumb luck) and we were unified (easier for us sure but by no means inevitable, we deserve credit as a nation for it).

How about the religious differences and the self interest of each of these colonies? They did sacrifice autonomy, whatever the reason, and unified to make the nation stronger. A choice, not luck. We had a unifying vision that transcended petty differences, if the other groups didn't that would be their fault, not some hand of luck.

Political stability or instability isn't an accident. We could have very easily have been unstable and Brazil could have gotten its act together sooner.

The British were in Canada and tried (War of 1812) but we won that one too.

Sure it does but it didn't make our incredible level of success inevitable. Other groups had a shot at it (Native Americans, Spanish colonists, French colonists) and were unable to make it work.

quote:

I haven't been talking about certain inevitability, I'm referring to a certain distinct advantage that we had, one that I feel is at the core... a necessary condition of most of America's successes at the least, and a direct cause of many of the others.

quote:

Colonists imported their tech, political systems, literary traditions, and animals from the old world. This is not something that they invented from scratch once they got there, and as such, not something that I can see them as deserving credit for.

quote:

With respect to Brazil, again, we did have the benefit of the founding fathers.

quote:

As I said, the early United States has a few problems that pushed it towards a stronger degree of unification.

quote:

With respect to the British being in Canada, again, we'd been a nation for 30 years, we had the home court advantage, and they were far from home.

quote:

All true but they were still the greatest empire in the world (the sun never sets and all that jazz) and we still beat them as a tiny upstart nation twice.

quote:

America is the lone superpower (although China is growing into superpower status) and we were successful beyond belief. I imagine the history of any successful nation (or person) contains many moments of good fortune. The key is to take it and run with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

I haven't been talking about certain inevitability, I'm referring to a certain distinct advantage that we had, one that I feel is at the core... a necessary condition of most of America's successes at the least, and a direct cause of many of the others.

If you're saying that if we took the American nation with all its strengths and weaknesses and plunked them down in the middle of Europe circa 1500 - 1800 and said go for it we would not have risen like we did I would say of course I agree with that. There was a reason those people were here instead of there (or at least initially). Partly the pioneering spirit but partly because for whatever reason life in Europe wasn't really working for them.

But to then say as you did that our success is due to luck is taking it too far. If we didn't utilize the advantages we had we would have fallen by the wayside like many others that attempted to settle here. Or still struggling like many of the others. Its not that we were successful, its the level of our success.

...

All true but they were still the greatest empire in the world (the sun never sets and all that jazz) and we still beat them as a tiny upstart nation twice.

I think we have a philosophical divide more than a historical one. I simply do not believe that luck is the sole determiner of success. Period. I acknoweledge that we were fortunate and if we were a middling nation, doing well but not considered among the top, I would surely say we squandered our opportunity. But to dismiss our resounding success as just dumb luck to me is unthinkable.

And yes if we had different circumstances then yes the outcome may well have been different. But here we are, America is the lone superpower (although China is growing into superpower status) and we were successful beyond belief. I imagine the history of any successful nation (or person) contains many moments of good fortune. The key is to take it and run with it.

quote:

I'm actually pro-secessionist on general principal (ask me about Tibet) so I don't think a split would have been disastrous for America but that is neither here nor there

quote:

"Grit", to take this back a bit, doesn't match up to either the horse or the size/location of America.

quote:

Twice however we weren't the only nation they were fighting with and in each occasion it was decided the cost of fighting us and what they could achieve with victory over us wasn't worth it compared to their other fights going on concurrently.

quote:

The only problem with being a superpower there is only one direction to go and history tells us that it is down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rufas2000

quote:

I'm actually pro-secessionist on general principal (ask me about Tibet) so I don't think a split would have been disastrous for America but that is neither here nor there

It wouldn't have been disastrous but I don't think we'd be the lone superpower. And we'd have a neighbor (or several) with all the advantages we have. I personally think that once the secessionist principle was introduced (whether after the Civil War or earlier) it would have spread and the United States would be several countries more like Europe, complete with that balance of power ethos.

I don't see in particular how the South would have stayed together, their insistence on states rights (and their lifestyle) was their unifying factor, not much to build a country on (actually it would have been anti useful). Of course that could have also led to a gradual reunion with The North (as opposed to The South becoming several little countries) but it would have slowed our progress considerably.

quote:

But I think we've found common ground here. I'll concede the good fortune (luck may have the same dictionary definition but its used in a different way) if you'll concede our forefathers put the effort forth and made the right decisions. One without the other and we most likely fail. So there you go.