American Empire?

The U.S. is definately a group of people ruled over by a powerful sovereign government. Let me say though, that's a lousy definition. It's too unspecific. Next, the Bush administration rules much like the British, and Roman governments did. You have an executive leader who has all the power. The legislative branch of the U.S. is too weak and corrupt to say no to the president who has veto power. The courts are responsible for Bush's presidency and are behind completely. Bush lies and exagerates to the public to start wars, like many emperors of the past and he's rigged all of the presidentialelections he has ran in recently. He's the son of the first Bush. It's an imperialistic government. It fits your dictionaries' definition.

Originally posted by KingTut
The U.S. is definately a group of people ruled over by a powerful sovereign government. Let me say though, that's a lousy definition. It's too unspecific. Next, the Bush administration rules much like the British, and Roman governments did. You have an executive leader who has all the power. The legislative branch of the U.S. is too weak and corrupt to say no to the president who has veto power. The courts are responsible for Bush's presidency and are behind completely. Bush lies and exagerates to the public to start wars, like many emperors of the past and he's rigged all of the presidentialelections he has ran in recently. He's the son of the first Bush. It's an imperialistic government. It fits your dictionaries' definition.

It say peoples. Not people.

And they are not ruled. They rule themselves.

It is a peoples! Native Americans, Latinos, Caucasians, African Americans, Asians...etc. and this country is ruled by a government. In fact it's a fascist government. A fascist government has been defined as the following:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
5. Rampant sexism
6. A controlled mass media
7. Obsession with national security
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
9. Power of corporations protected
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
14. Fraudulent elections

It's a perfect match. That's right, not only are we "ruled," we are ruled by a fascist dictator.

Only you aren't ruled by a dictator seeing as the people still have the ability to choose who they want to rule them. Elections at least the first one might have been won through cheating and perhaps it was then made legal through judges that shouldn't have been there. It doesn't meant that the house of representatives and the senate are not democratic.

The US is not a fascist state.

Originally posted by Fishy
Only you aren't ruled by a dictator seeing as the people still have the ability to choose who they want to rule them. Elections at least the first one might have been won through cheating and perhaps it was then made legal through judges that shouldn't have been there. It doesn't meant that the house of representatives and the senate are not democratic.

The US is not a fascist state.

You are missing the point! Congress is a puppet institution and so are the judges.

Originally posted by KingTut
You are missing the point! Congress is a puppet institution and so are the judges.

Even if what you say is true, which is quite ridiculous as there are indeed differences between the people in congress, but even if the people of congress are still elected into office by the people. So if the people in the US are to stupid to change things and elect different leaders then the democratically elected government where everything sucks is still their own choice.

As long as you have the freedom to choose who will lead and everybody can put him or herself up for office you are not in a fascist state. Everything else is just policy created by the people who were elected into office and should be representing the will of the people. If not you should just choose new leaders.

Well....what fishy said.

Originally posted by Fishy
Even if what you say is true, which is quite ridiculous as there are indeed differences between the people in congress, but even if the people of congress are still elected into office by the people. So if the people in the US are to stupid to change things and elect different leaders then the democratically elected government where everything sucks is still their own choice.

As long as you have the freedom to choose who will lead and everybody can put him or herself up for office you are not in a fascist state. Everything else is just policy created by the people who were elected into office and should be representing the will of the people. If not you should just choose new leaders.

Maybe the it is a little far to say congress is completely a puppet, but regardless of the party that has majority, Bush can do what Bush wants to do. However, on your second point, Bush rigged both elections. He was not elected.

Originally posted by KingTut
Maybe the it is a little far to say congress is completely a puppet, but regardless of the party that has majority, Bush can do what Bush wants to do. However, on your second point, Bush rigged both elections. He was not elected.

He may have rigged the first elections, there is even some "proof" of that. And as illegal as it was, the US people still didn't stand up. Corrupt leaders are apparently accepted, I have seen no conclusive evidence to suggest that he also rigged the second elections. To be honest this is the first time I heard it.

And that was still only his first term, as wrong as it was.

And Bush can't do whatever he wants, unless I completely misunderstand the American system. But if Bush can do whatever he wants then what's the point of congress? If he can just ignore it move around it and throw people out, what's the use?

Originally posted by KingTut
Maybe the it is a little far to say congress is completely a puppet, but regardless of the party that has majority, Bush can do what Bush wants to do. However, on your second point, Bush rigged both elections. He was not elected.

No, he can't.

The US just isn't an empire. What's so hard about that?

Originally posted by KingTut
You are missing the point! Congress is a puppet institution and so are the judges.

Originally posted by Fishy
He may have rigged the first elections, there is even some "proof" of that. And as illegal as it was, the US people still didn't stand up. Corrupt leaders are apparently accepted, I have seen no conclusive evidence to suggest that he also rigged the second elections. To be honest this is the first time I heard it.

And that was still only his first term, as wrong as it was.

And Bush can't do whatever he wants, unless I completely misunderstand the American system. But if Bush can do whatever he wants then what's the point of congress? If he can just ignore it move around it and throw people out, what's the use?

I'm pretty sure that he cheated in 2004. Some democratic districts' polls closed early. The evidence is a little dodgy, I'll give you that, but after all the other indecent things Bush has done, I think he was up to something.

Originally posted by Strangelove
Congress and the Supreme Court are only 'puppet institutions' if they decide not to do their civic duty and echo everything the President says

And that's what they have been doing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, he can't.

The US just isn't an empire. What's so hard about that?

Why couldn't he?

Sorry if I seem stubborn. I just truly believe the US is an empire. Why would they different then any other superpower in history?

Originally posted by KingTut
Why couldn't he?

Sorry if I seem stubborn. I just truly believe the US is an empire. Why would they different then any other superpower in history?

But they aren't different. Much. The term Empire just doesn't apply to it. It doesn'thave any colonies and no possesions in foreign countries (well, none they won't give back)

They are also a democracy.

Originally posted by KingTut
Why couldn't he?

Sorry if I seem stubborn. I just truly believe the US is an empire. Why would they different then any other superpower in history?

As Bardock pointed out, the evidence against this claim is simply the S government.

We live in a Republic, not an empire. If you think the US fits the defintion of an Empire, you need to brush up on your political systems.

Originally posted by Alliance
As Bardock pointed out, the evidence against this claim is simply the S government.

We live in a Republic, not an empire. If you think the US fits the defintion of an Empire, you need to brush up on your political systems.

No, quite frankly, you do. The Romans were suposedely a republic (with an emperor), but we call it an empire. So were the British and Russians (Soviet Union), the French and Germans (I'm refering to Hitler.) Don't let the fact that we have a president instead of an emperor, king, premier or First Consul stop you. The American even appears to be heridetary now.

Next time, before you question someone's intelligence, think.

Originally posted by KingTut
No, quite frankly, you do. The Romans were suposedely a republic (with an emperor), but we call it an empire. So were the British and Russians (Soviet Union), the French and Germans (I'm refering to Hitler.) Don't let the fact that we have a president instead of an emperor, king, premier or First Consul stop you. The American even appears to be heridetary now.

Next time, before you question someone's intelligence, think.

You are the only one not thinking clearly here...

Bush did not inherit the thrown of the United States he got elected into office sort off. He can be thrown out by the justice system, congress does not follow him by definition and he has to convince the people he is right. He has a lot of power that is true, but only for a few more years, after that he is gone and somebody new will show up and take power over the United States. Bush will be gone.

Meaning he's not an emperor, he's not even an absolute ruler. He just has a shit load of power in his second term in office.

Originally posted by Fishy
You are the only one not thinking clearly here...

Bush did not inherit the thrown of the United States he got elected into office sort off. He can be thrown out by the justice system, congress does not follow him by definition and he has to convince the people he is right. He has a lot of power that is true, but only for a few more years, after that he is gone and somebody new will show up and take power over the United States. Bush will be gone.

Meaning he's not an emperor, he's not even an absolute ruler. He just has a shit load of power in his second term in office.

I'm thinking very clearly thank you very much.

Bush didn't "inherit the throne," no, but he inherited the name, friends, and all the necessary tools from his father to get where his now. His father had recieved many of his tools from his own father: Prescott Bush. Any fool can reach the white house with a father like George. It's a dynasty. Clinton was only a moderate "new age" democrat that had to follow the rules given by the congress which had to fill in for the Bushes. Now that we have another Bush in the white house, congress has let Bush fulfill his role as absolute ruler of the American Empire under the disguise of another "president." It all seems obvious to me.

Originally posted by KingTut
I'm thinking very clearly thank you very much.

Bush didn't "inherit the throne," no, but he inherited the name, friends, and all the necessary tools from his father to get where his now. His father had recieved many of his tools from his own father: Prescott Bush. Any fool can reach the white house with a father like George. It's a dynasty. Clinton was only a moderate "new age" democrat that had to follow the rules given by the congress which had to fill in for the Bushes. Now that we have another Bush in the white house, congress has let Bush fulfill his role as absolute ruler of the American Empire under the disguise of another "president." It all seems obvious to me.

Bush using the tools he had to get into office only speaks for him, it wouldn't make the President of the United States a inherited title.

The very fact that he still got elected into office much like the people in congress and the people in the house of representatives make it very clear that there is indeed something like free choice in the United States and that the people have the ability to elect who they want to lead them.

That they happened to have chosen Bush and his Father means that they obviously at the time of the elections felt those two were most suited to do the job. All other things are irrelevant and Bush will still be gone in a few years and somebody will have to run for office again to get his job. And the people will have to put their trust into that particular person. You can't just walk up to the Oval office put your ass in the chair and say "I am President" you still have to get the people's approval, meaning not an Empire with an emperor but a democracy with a by the people elected head of state.