Questions for our American friends

[palo5]

I don't understand this, because "Red" means something different to almost everyone else in the world

This is "Red"





So why do Republicans want our color?

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What are the chances of Puerto Rico, the USVI, Guam or Samoa ever becoming states witin the Union? Hawaii was admitted as a state in 1959, so there is a precedent.

Just my opinion but I think there is a pretty good chance for Puerto Rico as they have a population that could, eventually, be large enough.

USVI, Guam and Samoa probably not. Populations are too small and Guam and Samoa will probably be underwater within the next 50 years or so. So they won't even exist in a few years.

[theequestrian]

Puerto Rico has TURNED DOWN the chance for statehood on 3 separate occasions. As a US protectorate it has all the rights the other 50 states have. Puerto Ricans are US citizens. The reason why they don't want statehood is because they would then have to pay both federal and state taxes.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by billybunter

Can I ask, why do you need guns? Americans will recoil at this. I know it's written in your constitution. But I can't understand this obsession with firearms.

That's not an easy question to answer. Partly its because at the time the US had a very dangerous frontier and continued to have one for more than 150 years after independence. For that matter there are still parts of the country where carrying a gun is a good idea because of wild life. (The injuin problem seems to have cleared up for the most part. )

Partly its because we have just fought a multi-year bloody revolution against what was perceived as a tyrannical government and it is thought by many that it was intended to give the population the ability to do so again. There is also the fact that at the time it was intended that the country would not have a large standing army but would rely on citizen militia. Hence a significant percentage of the population had to be armed and familiar with using their weapons.

So over time it became part of the national culture and identity. There is also the issue of perceived power. Owning a weapon can make one feel safe, powerful. (Let's avoid the whole discussion of how one gets so damaged that they "need" that, ok?)

After long enough for some people the right to own firearms became an article of faith, like any other religion. Yes, religion. Not all religions involve gods, churches/temples and/or priests.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by kiwali

I agree the sentence "guns dont kill, people do", but with less gus arround the world would be safer.


A few questions american friends.

Why is so important graduete from high school? according to movies and tv, the graduates recive nice presents and celebrate a party.

Its a right of passage and usually the end of mandatory schooling.

Could you travel and live without any visa or other legal requirement to Puerto Rico?

Yes. As an American Territory it is considered US soil, same as any state. The difference is in the level of representation it has in the Federal government. And just to confuse you, Puerto Rico has more than once voted to turn down statehood, turn down independence and remain a Territory.

[knobby109]

I have heard that Hawaii was hoping to join the British Empire, hence the Union Flag on their state flag.
Regarding the "tyrannical" British rule leading to the War of Independence, it was nothing of the sort.The colonies were effectively self governing.For example, they allowed slavery which was never tolerated in England.
Worth reading;
Myth: The American colonists had nothing to lose but their chains

The American War of Independence began as nothing of the sort.

It was essentially an argument between loyalist and radical British subjects over trade and taxes, only gradually acquiring the rhetoric of civil rights and liberties. Even today that argument is mired in chauvinism.

London protested that a derisory £1,400-a-year in revenue was being gathered from the 13 colonies to pay for having been rescued by Britain from French autocracy in the Seven Years War.

To call this rescue "absolute despotism", as the Americans did, was absurd. The protested Stamp Acts were imposed throughout the empire, as were other trade restrictions, while the colonists enjoyed their own assemblies and were for the most part autonomous.

As a colony with self-governing rights, America was far better treated than Ireland.


I have a suspicion that the Second Amendment and the talk of "tyrannical government" were the result of worries that the British might return and deal with the leaders as traitors.It's come to bite them hard, with 30000 gun deaths a year and a paranoid distrust of government by a large section of the population.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by theequestrian

Puerto Rico has TURNED DOWN the chance for statehood on 3 separate occasions. As a US protectorate it has all the rights the other 50 states have. Puerto Ricans are US citizens. The reason why they don't want statehood is because they would then have to pay both federal and state taxes.

I believe that this argument was trotted out in Hawaii also. There will be a fourth referendum on 6th November next, same day as the presidential election, in which Puerto Ricans (US citizens allegedly) cannot vote.

Here is a link to a pro-statehood web article which sets out the statehood case. I quote from there the counter-argument on federal taxation.

Beyond denying Puerto Rico full self-government, territory status enables the federal government to enact and administer laws that treat island residents less favorably than residents of the states. To take one of many possible examples, consider the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides monthly cash assistance to blind, disabled or elderly individuals who have limited or no income. SSI applies in the states, the District of Columbia, and one territory. Despite efforts by numerous Puerto Rico officials, Congress has chosen not to extend the program to the island, leaving its most vulnerable residents without an adequate safety net.
The courts uphold federal laws that treat Puerto Rico unequally as long as the federal government can demonstrate that there is a rational basis for the disparate treatment, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny. The federal government can satisfy this test by asserting that equal treatment would be expensive or that, pursuant to an act of Congress, residents of Puerto Rico are not required to pay federal taxes on income they earn on the island. This income tax argument has carried the day in court even though island residents are required to pay federal taxes on income earned outside of Puerto Rico and all federal payroll taxes. In 2010, the US Internal Revenue Service collected $3.6 billion in individual income taxes, employment taxes and business income taxes in Puerto Rico, which is more than the IRS collected in one state and not significantly less than it collected in at least four other states. The income tax rationale for disparate treatment also disregards the fact that over half of all households in the 50 states — including most if not all households that benefit from federal aid programs like SSI — do not earn enough to pay federal income taxes, yet still receive equal treatment from their national government.

Thus the argument is not "no representation without taxation" because there is taxation, but without representation. Rather, the argument is "no social security benefits without representation"; Puerto Rican residents do not receive equal treatment in the eyes of the US law, and in the absence of that, their US citizenship is a legal fiction.

There isn't much to say in favour of living in a tax haven if you don't earn enough money to pay taxes anyway.

However, although the US Supreme Court has disgraced itself by persevering with the lie that Congress has made no commitment to incorporate Puerto Rico as a state (it has), the right of the Puerto Rican citizens to self-determination is being respected. Both Mr Obama and Mr Romney have made public commitments to honour and act upon the outcome of this referendum. Congress has already passed an act recognising the legal validity of all the four options in the referendum. So if the citizens of Puerto Rico vote to remain a colony so that their wealthiest residents can continue to not-pay Federal income tax on income derived inside Puerto Rico, we need not waste any further sympathy.

[Warren G]

Originally Posted by knobby109

I have a suspicion that the Second Amendment and the talk of "tyrannical government" were the result of worries that the British might return and deal with the leaders as traitors.It's come to bite them hard, with 30000 gun deaths a year and a paranoid distrust of government by a large section of the population.

Oh ouch! What will we do now? Yeah, we really messed up. How we long for the good old days...


Have another beer...

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by Warren G

Oh ouch! What will we do now? Yeah, we really messed up. How we long for the good old days...


Have another beer...

Just an opinion!Simply from the wording of the Second Amendment it seems likely though.There never was tyrannical government from London.Though it has to be remembered that this was in the 1700s and whatever else it was, the ordinary man didn't have an easy life.
Was the common man less taxed , more free or better governed than before? Countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand seemed to thrive pretty well.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by knobby109

I have heard that Hawaii was hoping to join the British Empire, hence the Union Flag on their state flag.

The local tribal king cultivated British links, for example he befriended the novelist RL Stevenson when Stevenson was sailing in the Pacific and visited the Hawaian islands. But he also engaged actively in diplomacy with the US, negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with President Grant. Britain had historic links with the Kingdom of Hawaii, which used to be called the Sandwich Islands on British maps.

Originally Posted by knobby109

Regarding the "tyrannical" British rule leading to the War of Independence, it was nothing of the sort.The colonies were effectively self governing.

The American War of Independence began as nothing of the sort.

It was essentially an argument between loyalist and radical British subjects over trade and taxes, only gradually acquiring the rhetoric of civil rights and liberties. Even today that argument is mired in chauvinism.

To call this rescue "absolute despotism", as the Americans did, was absurd. The protested Stamp Acts were imposed throughout the empire, as were other trade restrictions, while the colonists enjoyed their own assemblies and were for the most part autonomous.

As a colony with self-governing rights, America was far better treated than Ireland.

When you look at how Ireland was treated, even when she was supposed to be part of the Union, this is not much of a recommendation. In fact, the American colonists did have legitimate grievances; the Navigation Acts were a good example of legislation which favoured Britain regardless of the harm this caused in the Americas. But the problem was also simple self-determination. The London parliament knew very little about conditions in the Americas and misgoverned the territories more often through mere ignorance rather than malice. The territories had local administrations but they weren't self-governing; for example, they had no jurisdiction to reject the embargo on US ships carrying US trade, or the monopoly given exclusively to British ships to trade in their waters. This was a greedy, selfish and exploitative policy in which the Americans had no say and no right of appeal.

The real deal-breaker though was the Stamp Act of 1765. UK revenue and customs were to be levied in the Americas just as they were in the UK; after all,the UK had paid for the Americas defence in the Seven Years War. But the Americans had no voice in this parliament which they were going to be financing. Benjamin Franklin petitioned the House of Commons against this measure and was publicly insulted by the members. The story goes that Franklin stood in silence until the MPs had finished shouting him down, denouncing him and calling for his arrest and execution, and then told them: "Gentlemen, I will make your King into a little man for this."