American exceptionalism....

Well either you have to get over it or agree to disagree, but this argument has been trotted out so many times it's beyond pathetic.

Who give a rat's arse (that's for you). It's ancient history and the fact of the matter is we got WAY bigger fish to fry than to constantly revisit this tired and worn out topic.

If you don't want us to be an ally, so be it! That's more American lives saved if we just pull out of everywhere and mind the p's and q's of our country.

Why don't you call on France the next time you need assistance, or how about Germany or Venezuela? Canada will be itching for a chance too...

We can't win for losing. Have history be the way you want it to be and put a lid on it, will ya?

It's my ball and I want to go home.
 
Here's the Global top 20. How many are British?
Royal Dutch Shell 458,361 26,277
2 Exxon Mobil 442,851 45,220
3 Wal-Mart Stores 405,607 13,400
4 BP 367,053 21,157
5 Chevron 263,159 23,931
6 Total 234,674 15,500
7 ConocoPhillips 230,764 -16,998
8 ING Group 226,577 -1,067
9 Sinopec 207,814 1,961
10 Toyota Motor 204,352 -4,349
11 Japan Post Holdings 198,700 4,208
12 General Electric 183,207 17,410
13 China National Petroleum 181,123 10,271
14 Volkswagen 166,579 6,957
15 State Grid 164,136 664
16 Dexia Group 161,269 -4,868
17 ENI 159,348 12,917
18 General Motors 148,979 -30,860
19 Ford Motor 146,277 -14,672
20 Allianz 142,395 -3,577

1 & 4 (4 recently merged with a Dutch company)

The share of foreign-owned U.S. companies as a percentage of the whole has also jumped to 13.9 percent. Back in 1971, foreign companies owned 1.3 percent of all corporate U.S. assets.

In 2005, 20.5 percent of qualifying dividends from these foreign-owned were repatriated to the United Kingdom, 16.2 percent to Japan, 12.7 percent to Germany and 12.3 percent to the Netherlands.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2744743020080827
 
We were unique in the fact that we did apply them.

Unique apart from all the other nations who have applied them before.

For example, our first bill of rights was formed 561 years before America was formed, and we were running a full democracy 127 years before.
 
Well either you have to get over it or agree to disagree, but this argument has been trotted out so many times it's beyond pathetic.

Who give a rat's arse (that's for you). It's ancient history and the fact of the matter is we got WAY bigger fish to fry than to constantly revisit this tired and worn out topic.

If you don't want us to be an ally, so be it! That's more American lives saved if we just pull out of everywhere and mind the p's and q's of our country.

Why don't you call on France the next time you need assistance, or how about Germany or Venezuela? Canada will be itching for a chance too...

We can't win for losing. Have history be the way you want it to be and put a lid on it, will ya?


Pull your lip back in and stop blubbering. This is a debate board.
 
Magna Carta required King John of England to proclaim certain rights (pertaining to freemen), respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be bound by the law.

Magna Carta, as it says, put even the king under the law. It gave all Englishmen fundamental rights, it was a declaration of rights that your own is based on.
As I said, previous forms of government established the power with the throne... note: the king proclaimed certain rights... not the people... not the Creator. The Magna Carta "required" him to make the proclamation, but the power rested with the King, and the Magna Carta was also an establishment of man, not the Creator.

I think you will find that the power rested with the swords of the barons, in representation of the English people, at Runnymede.

The King didn't proclaim rights, he was forced under the law, so that even he couldn't encrouch the people's rights.

Yes, we did take the best ideas from the most robust civilizations, and we perfected them by constructing a system where our liberty and rights come from the Creator, and not from a man (or men). Now Arnold, I don't care if you want to argue with that, you asked why we thought we had "exceptionalism" and I've explained it.
Poorly, by misrepresenting the Magna Carta.

America isn't any more exceptional than the countries it derived its founding principles from.

The Founding Fathers had enormous respect for the concept of the Magna Carta, because it did attempt to wrench power from the king and return it to the people, but the Magna Carta was an instrument devised by man, not endowed by our Creator.

Which is another kettle of fish altogether...

This debate can be found here:

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=627477"]Religion is for.... - Page 6 - Just Plain Politics![/ame]
 
Wait is BP not even British any more. You have zero companies in the top 20. Yeah that's classy

No, BP is British

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP"]BP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

And Shell is British, it has just recently merged with a Dutch firm.

And as I said, we are the largest foreign investor in the US.

Despite the notoriety of Japanese investors, the British have the largest U.S. direct investment holding—with the Dutch not far behind—as has been the case since colonial times. In 1990 the United Kingdom held about 27 percent of foreign direct investment in the United States, significantly greater than Japan's 21 percent.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/ForeignInvestmentintheUnitedStates.html
 
Magna Carta, as it says, put even the king under the law. It gave all Englishmen fundamental rights, it was a declaration of rights that your own is based on.

It specifically places power under purview of the king, it orders him to proclaim... not a proclamation from the Creator. It was established by a body of men, not endowed by our Creator. I am not arguing that the Magna Carter was no good, it just wasn't the sole basis for our own declaration of rights or independence from England. There is a fundamental difference in what our Founding Fathers established, and what was laid out in the Magna Carta, or anything else that had been tried before.

I think you will find that the power rested with the swords of the barons, in representation of the English people, at Runnymede.

Correct... and NOT with a Creator whom endowed man with those rights! Thanks for making my point so brilliantly! Kudos!

The King didn't proclaim rights, he was forced under the law, so that even he couldn't encrouch the people's rights.

The Magna Carta specifically calls for the king to make a proclamation of rights, it does not establish that our rights are inalienable or endowed by a Creator. The rights themselves, are still determined by man. The Magna Carta still "grants" rights, as opposed to rights being inalienable and endowed by a Creator.

Poorly, by misrepresenting the Magna Carta.

America isn't any more exceptional than the countries it derived its founding principles from.

I haven't misrepresented anything. I said our Founding Fathers established a unique government, in that it establishes our rights come from a Creator and are inalienable, you trotted out the Magna Carta as an example of how this had been done before, and I pointed out that the Magna Carta did no such thing... now you say I have misrepresented the Magna Carta!

You can certainly hold the opinion that America is no more exceptional than the countries it derived some of the founding principles from, but your opinion is not what makes something factual and accurate. I know that comes as a huge blow to your ego, but really Arnold, that is how it goes!


Which is another kettle of fish altogether...

This debate can be found here:

Religion is for.... - Page 6 - Just Plain Politics!

What I said has nothing to do with Religion. You want to connect "Creator" with "Religion" because most religious beliefs involve some entity credited with Creation, but the founding principles of our nation do not involve a specific religious dogma or belief.
 
Back
Top