| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62
Comments:
<0> 10 million?
<0> 100 million?
<0> 500 million?
<0> is India an "empire" because it has sovereign authority over 15% of the world's population?
<1> I believe it is referring to various types of people.
<1> In it's hayday France controlled territories that included asians, africans, etc.
<0> Ah. So then any multi-ethnic society is also an "empire."
<1> No no no... only if you ignore the entire rest of the definition.
<0> I'm sorry, the definition you supplied is pretty vague and useless. Even if it did come from a dictionary.
<1> Which is of course silly.
<1> Vague and useless if you ignore all but two words at a time.
<1> Sure
<0> I didn't ignore the rest of the definition. It uses the word "or," not "and." Meaning ANY of those conditions is sufficient to define an empire.
<1> But I'm not going to carry it out to semantical extremes just to rant against a non-issue.
<0> And some of those conditions are satisfied by nations that are obviously NOT empires.
<0> And that's why the definitition is broad, vague, and ultimately useless.
<2> hey
<1> Go write Merriam-Webster and bitch.
<1> Not my problem.
<0> It is your problem since you used it as a basis of your argument.
<1> And what is my argument?
<3> point is there's not one hard fast definition
<1> That influence alone doesn't make an empire?
<3> but the constant is exercising a powerful degree of control over territories outside one's own nation
<3> any of a combination of military, political, economic, cultural influences
<0> Well, let's see. Your argument is that any nation that does not have a layered system of governance is an empire, that any nation with "great numbers of peoples" is an empire, that the U.S. does not claim sovereignty over Arizona...
<1> Timur-... I'd argue that is far more broad than the Merriam-Webster definition.
<0> In essence, you ask a very good question, since your various ***ertions are separately and concurrently nonsensical. What *is* your argument?
<1> Influence is felt by all nations by some other nation.
<4> Thanks for the +v
<3> Son: indeed. :)
<1> <0> Well, let's see. Your argument is that any nation that does not have a layered system of governance is an empire NOPE not saying that at all that any nation with "great numbers of peoples" is an empire NOPE, not saying that at all that the U.S. does not claim sovereignty over Arizona... NOPE, not saying that at all
<1> Any other strawmen you want to throw at me?
<3> degrees of influence through a variety of methods
<5> so much ***ual tension between spam and drover
<3> so thick, you could cut it with a knife
<6> The Lady of the Lake her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why i am you King!
<1> He's just jealous of my doggy style
<3> and put it on toast
<7> ***ual tension?
<7> I'm in!
<0> SonOfSpam: Except that you have said all of those things.
<0> <1> The key issue with the 'empire' debate is whether the central power has absolute control over the territory.
<0> <1> empire: a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority
<0> <1> Much like the US doesn't exert sovereign authority over the Mexican territory that became States.
<0> It's there for anyone with an adequate scroll buffer to see.
<3> that's not the key issue tho
<1> Yes, if you take the comments separately with no regard for the others.
<1> A key issue doesn't mean 'only issue'
<3> it's not an issue of absolute control, because many empires existed without exercising direct control, viz. GB
<1> One line I should correct: <1> Much like the US doesn't exert sovereign authority over the Mexican territory that became States.
<0> It's NOT an issue, "key" "only" or otherwise.
<1> That should say "<1> Much like the US doesn't exert sole sovereign authority over the Mexican territory that became States."
<1> That was an honest mistake on my part.
<0> yes, Son, it *does* exert sole authority over those states.
<0> What other nation exerts authority over those states?
<0> Canada?
<0> Swaziland?
<1> DiscoTaco... fraid not, States have their own limited sovereignty.
<7> I've got some questions
<0> French Guinana??
<6> Camelot!
<7> Which Mexican territory?
<1> If you do not believe that states have their own limited sovereignty you have missed about 200 years of Constitutional Law.
<7> And what does soverign mean?
<0> SonOfSpam: it apparently bears reminding once again that state sovereingty is granted by a FEDERAL CHARTER.
<8> hi Vemo
<1> And without a *single* sovereign authority all other parts of the definition are useless, hence why it is a 'key issue'
<8> What are you sons of bitches discussing?
<6> why i am King
<7> Hey jega
<9> god who let him back on
<8> Tell me what you find attractive about men, Vemo.
<1> DiscoTaco... perhaps it also bears reminding that States had the inherent sovereignty to agree to that federal charter and retained some of their sovereignty with that federal charter per that federal charter and upheld by the courts created by that federal charter for over 200 years.
<1> ;)
<7> The only mexican territory I'm aware of is Mexico
<1> VemoD... the southwestern US is mostly made up of former Mexican territory.
<1> Per the Texas revolt and Mexican American War... treaty of hidalgo, etc.
<7> So....they lost right?
<1> Polk's war as it was sometimes called.
<1> :P
<6> We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune
<5> FEMA: shut up
<6> Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
<7> You can't tell me that those ex (whatever you call them) want to become parts of mexico again
<6> Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
<0> SonOfSpam: they do NOT have inherent authority to revoke their agreement of that charter, as 13 Southern states found out the hard way. And again, in international matters the U.S. ***erts sole authority over the states, and internal political structure is irrelevent to that painfully obvious FACT.
<1> The Constitution itself points out it is not the sole authority.
<3> so much for the discussion about American empire abroad.. ah, well :)
<1> The federal gov't is limited to its enumerated powers.
<1> The States have the rest.
<7> Soverign....how do you spell it?
<0> It DOES point out that it IS the sole authority in international affairs.
<3> sovereign
<7> What does it mean?
<1> And as Supreme Court after Supreme Court has pointed out, the States retained limited sovereignty.
<0> Jesus, are you honestly this dense, or just deliberately irritating?
<7> something-reign
<0> *sigh*
<10> Vemo you use Fire Fox ?
<0> my head hurts from the wall-banging.
<0> later
<7> I use IE
<1> Being wrong can be extremely frustrating when faced with a logical refutation.
<10> http://www.thefreedictionary.com <--- Bookmark this
<1> Can lead to name calling and ad hominem attacks by the person who can't defend their position.
<10> in fire fox its a easy pulldown
<10> either way its easy
<7> rond: hehe :) good tip
<11> whats the terror alert level
<0> It's hard to defend your position against people who simply eschew obvious facts. Not much you can do for folks who perpetually insiste 2 + 2 = 5 no matter how many times and from how many directions you point out that they're factually wrong.
<9> Looks like Germany gets Gold in the Biathlon
<1> Fortunately for me my figures add up correctly.
<10> Ahhh man there on forgot about the olympics
<11> lol
<0> But if you want to keep living in your dream world that the U.S. does not ***ert sole authority over the U.S. in international matters, be my guest. You'd be wrong, but it's your right to be wrong. So have at it, and have a nice day.
<7> So the U$ is using "a slavering nation" as self governing an independent
<7> ?
<10> good its a nasty day outside here all day
<11> topic is always right-leaning :-/
<7> Or is that unfair?
<1> DiscoTaco... I don't believe that... and never argued that.
<1> Strawmen arguments won't do anything for your case.
<11> i remember some guy came in before and there was a debate over king's achievements and his legacy and this guy was like -- only in #politics would you see king's achievements as debatable and up for scrutiny :-/
<9> yes we were a slavery nation who was sold slaves by all the self righteous european countries like France, England, Deutschland
<7> I dunno sovereign.....the U$ means that as independent right
<7> ?
<10> What is U$ supposed to mean ?
<12> rond: ebonics for US
<12> rond: don't act like you didn't know dawg
<10> could be but I want to hear his definition
<7> Pretty much
<10> that one is not in thefreedictionary.com
<7> Its what I call it
<10> what does it mean ?
<10> what derogatory comment are you making by that
<7> I gotta look at the dictionary
<3> you're all pooftahs! thats what I mean!
<7> United Sates of Unconscientious
<7> err
<7> nah
<1> o_O
<12> wouldn't that be USS?
<12> err
<12> USU
<7> Well. gets the point across
<10> No actually I don't
<10> er it does not
<12> Sates?
<12> what are Sates?
<7> The states don't exist?
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
Aieeeee!!! mirc virus
install kismet on linksys wrt54gl
STEEL-1020
#computers
pl/sql string concatination
#nhl
#politics
#dsl
control passwords2 broken
#red
|
|