Liberal level stupid

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Zambroski said:

...and an international studies professor no less.  I have no doubt she knew what she was trying to convey, but just couldn't get over her own emotions to do so.  A good liberal.

What am I missing here? Explain it to me nice and slow since I apparently have a third grade understanding of english.

[Snoslinger]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

What am I missing here? Explain it to me nice and slow since I apparently have a third grade understanding of english.

he doesn't know what snake's point is, hence the reason he's not responding. I'm guessing snake will arguethe term "international" or say we created the US, nobody else.

 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

What am I missing here? Explain it to me nice and slow since I apparently have a third grade understanding of english.

I'll pm you.  :lol but gimme a bit I'm on the road.

[Snake]

Slinger has Googled the issue, seen the mistakes, and is now setting up a preliminary smoke screen where he KNOWS what the argument is, but wants to make it look like he figured it out by himself. Just watch.

[Highmark]

9 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

What am I missing here? Explain it to me nice and slow since I apparently have a third grade understanding of english.

The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was between Great Britain and the US.   There was no "international community."   

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448224/no-joyce-chaplin-america-was-not-created-international-community

In a bumper day of silly and ignorant comments, this one has to take the cake. The United States was not “created” by the “international community,” and nor was the Treaty of Paris the key moment in its development. Rather, by 1783, the United States was a fact on the ground. In Paris, the British merely accepted that.

How was the United States “created”? By a combination of the pen and the sword. In 1776, the world had been informed by a “unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” that: these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

By 1783, the “united Colonies” had made good on this by winning a war. To hear Chaplin tell it, you’d think that the United States was proactively invented by a collection of meddlesome powers — that its creation story was akin in nature to Belgium’s or to Pakistan’s or to Palestine’s. But it wasn’t. It was made by insurrectionists who threw off an imperial yoke, and it was recognized by the defeated entity’s surrender. Grand as its name may sound, the Treaty of Paris was not a meeting of the “international community” but a bilateral agreement — that is, an agreement that had only two signatories.

Those signatories were Britain, which was surrendering and agreeing to both the terms of that surrenders and the border adjustments it yielded, and the United States, which was being recognized as a new nation. That the U.S. was soon widely recognized is interesting, certainly. But its existence as a sovereign nation was not the product of the Treaty of Paris any more than the existence of the incandescent lightbulb was the product of the U.S. patent office.  Even if we accept Chaplin’s premise, I can’t for the life of me work out what she is trying to argue. Suppose that the U.S. had indeed been created ex nihilo by a collection of superior powers. So what? Are we supposed to conclude that any country that has benefited at some point from the “international community” is obliged in perpetuity to defer to its wishes? Or is it that Paris is now sacrosanct when it comes to American policy, such that any transnational agreement made there must be held to be inviolable? Belgium’s independence was decided by a host of major players at the 1830 London Conference. Does this mean that the Belgians are now “betraying” the “international community” if they decline to acquiesce to the wishes of people who meet there? And to what lengths should we take the duties of “gratitude”? The American revolutionaries enjoyed help from France during their struggle, certainly. But at what point does that cease to impinge upon their ability to exercise sovereignty? Much more recently, France was liberated by the Allied Forces in World War II. Should we assume that it is not free to chart its own course?  What a lot of nonsense we are seeing these days.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448224/no-joyce-chaplin-america-was-not-created-international-community

Edited June 7, 2017 by Highmark

[Zambroski]

Fuck guys...just google her tweet, I'd be amazed if it hasn't been ripped apart by now.

[Snake]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

Fuck guys...just google her tweet, I'd be amazed if it hasn't been ripped apart by now.

10 different ways to Sunday.

But Slinger and XLT know better apparently.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Aren't we grasping at straws a little here? Yes it was a treaty that declared the US as a sovereign country between two countries. One universally accepted by the international community though. 

I thought there would be some big aha moment. Didn't realize this was the level of nit-picky we were at as conservatives... Yes it is a stretch to equate the two, but really? 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Aren't we grasping at straws a little here? Yes it was a treaty that declared the US as a sovereign country between two countries. One universally accepted by the international community though. 

I thought there would be some big aha moment. Didn't realize this was the level of nit-picky we were at as conservatives... Yes it is a stretch to equate the two, but really? 

Not really and I think the other point is shouldn't a Harvard professor know the difference?  Many countries recognized US independence prior to 1783.   That was just GB's recognition of our independence FROM THEM.  

[T1R9sledder]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not really and I think the other point is shouldn't a Harvard professor know the difference?  Many countries recognized US independence prior to 1783.   That was just GB's recognition of our independence FROM THEM.  

You would think so. I might only have a 6th grade education but I did stay at some Holiday Expresses over the years.  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not really and I think the other point is shouldn't a Harvard professor know the difference?  Many countries recognized US independence prior to 1783.   That was just GB's recognition of our independence FROM THEM.  

True, but if they had won, would other countries be recognizing our independence? The Treaty solidified our sovereignty. 

[Highmark]

3 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

True, but if they had won, would other countries be recognizing our independence? The Treaty solidified our sovereignty. 

If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day of the year.   

[T1R9sledder]

4 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

True, but if they had won, would other countries be recognizing our independence? The Treaty solidified our sovereignty. 

Hard to say...I doubt it. We would still be part of the British Empire and no treaty.  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Highmark said:

If "ifs and buts" were candy and nuts it would be Christmas every day of the year.   

Ok. Is that your way of saying, "you're right?"

The stretch by her was silly, but you guys are blowing this out of proportion. 

[T1R9sledder]

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Ok. Is that your way of saying, "you're right?"

The stretch by her was silly, but you guys are blowing this out of proportion. 

Just another day in FSCE It does make a good alt-history story if the Brits had won.

Edited June 7, 2017 by T1R9sledder

[Highmark]

5 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Ok. Is that your way of saying, "you're right?"

The stretch by her was silly, but you guys are blowing this out of proportion. 

No.  They didn't win and countries were recognizing our independence BEFORE the Treaty of Paris.  Whether other countries were to recognize us or not we still would have stayed the United States of America.  We were stating to the world the following.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,

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.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Highmark

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, T1R9sledder said:

Just another day in FSCE It does make a good alt-history story if the Brits had won.

Just seemed like there were three people all blown out about this yet no one wanted to explain why. Seemed to be people wanted to be angry and outraged just to be angry and outraged... God forbid they had a reason other than: Liberal, Harvard, Tweet. 

Just another non-story being perpetuated as riveting news by FSCE. 

[Highmark]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

Just seemed like there were three people all blown out about this yet no one wanted to explain why. Seemed to be people wanted to be angry and outraged just to be angry and outraged... God forbid they had a reason other than: Liberal, Harvard, Tweet. 

Just another non-story being perpetuated as riveting news by FSCE. 

Not sure anyone was "all blown out" over this.   

[SSFB]

I think it was a stupid tweet but it's no more stupid than the stuff that comes from Trump's account.

 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Highmark said:

No.  They didn't win and countries were recognizing our independence BEFORE the Treaty of Paris.  Whether other countries were to recognize us or not we still would have stayed the United States of America.  We were stating to the world the following.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,

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.

You don't need to quote the Declaration of Independence to me... You are foolish if you think people would continue to see us as independent of Britain if they curb stomped is after. Thankfully we are hella gnar and awesome so it didn't happen, but the fact remains. We lose after 1776 we would have been a footnote in British history and no more. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Not sure anyone was "all blown out" over this.   

Snake. Z. So maybe just two.

[Highmark]

Just now, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

You don't need to quote the Declaration of Independence to me... You are foolish if you think people would continue to see us as independent of Britain if they curb stomped is after. Thankfully we are hella gnar and awesome so it didn't happen, but the fact remains. We lose after 1776 we would have been a footnote in British history and no more. 

   Keep telling yourself that.   

[Skidooski]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not sure anyone was "all blown out" over this.   

Oh no...I was all blown out over this. I just got back from rehab and now headed to see a doctor for my "blow out"

 

Ooops I guess it was my turn to embellish and exaggerate  

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

Just now, Highmark said:

   Keep telling yourself that.   

Yeah... We lose and still remained British colonies, the Declaration of Independence would be so pivotal.... America is great, love it, but don't be foolish about what would have been if it were not to have been.

[T1R9sledder]

2 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

You don't need to quote the Declaration of Independence to me... You are foolish if you think people would continue to see us as independent of Britain if they curb stomped is after. Thankfully we are hella gnar and awesome so it didn't happen, but the fact remains. We lose after 1776 we would have been a footnote in British history and no more. 

Not necessarily.....We would an independent country but not what the US as we know it.