At what point in history would you say America was at it's best?

[Constitutional Paulicy]

We often make comparisons to the past, in relationship to the present, as though the past was some kind of utopia. To be honest, I see atrocities in our history that are down right shameful. Of course there are periods where things were better than they are today, which brings me to my question. At what point in history would you say America was at it's best?

[John F Kennedy III]

Pre 1492. It's been all down hill from there.

[Ronin Truth]

1776-1789 (Until the Federalists sold out the American Revolution with their CONstitution coup of the AoC.)

[Carson]

Maybe we are at our best and worst right now? No where to go but up?

[69360]

Post WW2 till JFK.

[otherone]

http://store51.com/pics/dinolandscape_mural_1000.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

1880-1920

An insane amount of innovation, wealth creation and still a relative amount of freedom.

Once the damage done by WWI and the Progressive Era took hold, it's been all downhill since then, even if it didn't appear so on the surface.

[XNavyNuke]

June 1775.

http://www.printsoldandrare.com/boston/210bo.jpg

Print available here:
http://www.printsoldandrare.com/boston/

XNN

[invisible]

1880-1920

An insane amount of innovation, wealth creation and still a relative amount of freedom.

Once the damage done by WWI and the Progressive Era took hold, it's been all downhill since then, even if it didn't appear so on the surface.

I would peg it as the period between the Civil War and WWI. We were pretty much at peace. We had about as much freedom as we've ever had, and then started losing it right after this period. Immigrants were arriving in droves, becoming Americans, and contributing to a rapidly expanding economy. Ever since that period, we have never been as free or as prosperous.

[invisible]

Post WW2 till JFK.

A good argument can be made for this period as well, especially if you only consider the post-WWII period. The big exception during this time would be Korea.

[PaulConventionWV]

Pre 1492. It's been all down hill from there.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

[William Tell]

https://33.media.tumblr.com/7651a11f374a2f5d0942b67803b37738/tumblr_mtegvgr9UC1sd857do1_500.png

[Constitutional Paulicy]

1776-1789 (Until the Federalists sold out the American Revolution with Their CONstitution coup of the AoC.)

Since slavery was first allowed in 1789, I'd have to think freedom and civil rights were less likely to be trampled on prior to the end date you mentioned.

[Snew]

Probably ~1000-1492. Technology improving, great cities and villages being built/lived in (Acoma and Taos pueblos, for instance) and a much lovelier natural environment.

I'll take a handful of warring tribes over what we have today.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Probably ~1000-1492. Technology improving, great cities and villages being built/lived in (Acoma and Taos pueblos, for instance) and a much lovelier natural environment.

I'll take a handful of warring tribes over what we have today.

Ya, when you consider the American Indians and African Americans, you're talking about the entire span of our nations history.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Pre 1492. It's been all down hill from there.

I'm leaning towards this^^

[Ender]

1776-1789 (Until the Federalists sold out the American Revolution with their CONstitution coup of the AoC.)

If you're talk'n the official country and not the continent, then I agree with Ronin Truth.

[Ronin Truth]

Since slavery was first allowed in 1789, I'd have to think freedom and civil rights were less likely to be trampled on prior to the end date you mentioned.
We inherited slavery from the Brits.

[Ender]

We inherited slavery from the Brits.

Scalping, as well. ;)

[thoughtomator]

Best for whom?

[AuH20]

We inherited slavery from the Brits.

The Portuguese were the first European power that took to slavery and they were originally looking for gold in West Africa. The existing network was so lucrative there that they decided to take their hand in it and the rest is history. Slavery traces back to the 7th century on the continent of Africa and was commonplace among the native peoples there.

[AuH20]

1880-1920

An insane amount of innovation, wealth creation and still a relative amount of freedom.

Once the damage done by WWI and the Progressive Era took hold, it's been all downhill since then, even if it didn't appear so on the surface.

The Golden Era in my opinion.

[jclay2]

1880-1920

An insane amount of innovation, wealth creation and still a relative amount of freedom.

Once the damage done by WWI and the Progressive Era took hold, it's been all downhill since then, even if it didn't appear so on the surface.

I would subtract 7 years. 1913 was a very bad year for liberty. Income tax and the federal reserve. Ouch!

[Anti Federalist]

I would subtract 7 years. 1913 was a very bad year for liberty. Income tax and the federal reserve. Ouch!

Very true, but, like I said, it took a while (almost 100 years) for the chickens to come home to roost.

[charrob]

A good argument can be made for this period as well, especially if you only consider the post-WWII period. The big exception during this time would be Korea.

Just curious as to why? My personal view is that every single war the U.S. has ever fought in has been unnecessary with the exception being the Revolution and the War of 1812... and possibly Korea.

Korea is that one exception that has always bothered me: the people in the south were promised by the U.S. and Soviets at the end of ww2 that their independence could be maintained. Although vehemently opposed to intervention, they trusted us and were promised. It's just the one exception I struggle to oppose, and am curious if there are reasons beyond my understanding that better solidifies a position of nonintervention in that particular case?

[invisible]

Just curious as to why? My personal view is that every single war the U.S. has ever fought in has been unnecessary with the exception being the Revolution and the War of 1812... and possibly Korea.

Korea is that one exception that has always bothered me: the people in the south were promised by the U.S. and Soviets at the end of ww2 that their independence could be maintained. Although vehemently opposed to intervention, they trusted us and were promised. It's just the one exception I struggle to oppose, and am curious if there are reasons beyond my understanding that better solidifies a position of nonintervention in that particular case?

Because other than Korea, we weren't at war during this period (yes, this also overlooks the whole Cuba thing). Aside from the first few years after WWII, this was probably the longest period of real prosperity we've had after WWII. Wealth was still being created, we were building and exporting things, American products were considered among the best in the world. Indeed, things were built to last during this time, and many of those items are still in use today, and are still highly valued for their quality construction. The interstate highway system was conceived and partially constructed, which was a major national infrastructure improvement. Ever since this time, we have not had as long of a period in which we have not been at war and had prosperity for Main St.

[charrob]

Because other than Korea, we weren't at war during this period (yes, this also overlooks the whole Cuba thing). Aside from the first few years after WWII, this was probably the longest period of real prosperity we've had after WWII. Wealth was still being created, we were building and exporting things, American products were considered among the best in the world. Indeed, things were built to last during this time, and many of those items are still in use today, and are still highly valued for their quality construction. The interstate highway system was conceived and partially constructed, which was a major national infrastructure improvement. Ever since this time, we have not had as long of a period in which we have not been at war and had prosperity for Main St.

I agree, that was a very prosperous time for our country. I wasn't questioning that at all. It was more a curiosity from other noninterventionists as to why they feel that the U.S. should not have intervened in the Korean War?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Don't you people know that NOW is the best time, and the future is only brighter? You can now shovel in all the food you want because government will help you diet. Gay people have rights because they can now get marriage permits. Technology means you can practically sleep while your car drives itself.

You also have more rights because we've built governments compassionate enough to give them to you.

[invisible]

I agree, that was a very prosperous time for our country. I wasn't questioning that at all. It was more a curiosity from other noninterventionists as to why they feel that the U.S. should not have intervened in the Korean War?

If we had any sort of treaty with Korea, I'm unaware of it. Treaty or no treaty, promise to Korea or no promise, this was an undeclared war. Or was it? Did we actually have a proper declaration of war here? I don't believe we did, but it's certainly possible I'm mistaken.

[AuH20]

I think a key point that decided this country's fate in terms of future global interventionism was the Marshall Plan which eventually led to the creation of NATO & EU.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

The US has always sucked. So, has every other country that ever existed. The whole premise of a country is some men are superior to other men and those men decide what is "best" for all the people. I'm nearing 40 years old and still have not encountered one man that was better suited to make decisions for me than me.

I'm of the mindset anymore, that something like 20 thousand people is like the maximum limit any "community" should ever try to achieve, after that approximate number, it seems the separation between those deciding the macro level decisions becomes totally decoupled from the micro level, and that's the inherit problem of "Countries".

I think I've probably become to Anarchist in my thinking now for ronpaulforums. He's a politician afterall.

[GunnyFreedom]

1880-1920

An insane amount of innovation, wealth creation and still a relative amount of freedom.

Once the damage done by WWI and the Progressive Era took hold, it's been all downhill since then, even if it didn't appear so on the surface.

I was going to say 1890 to 1920, but yeah. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

1913 was a horrible year for liberty, yes, but the country wasn't affected by 1913, until around 1920.

[charrob]

If we had any sort of treaty with Korea, I'm unaware of it. Treaty or no treaty, promise to Korea or no promise, this was an undeclared war. Or was it? Did we actually have a proper declaration of war here? I don't believe we did, but it's certainly possible I'm mistaken.

You're correct, there was no declaration of war. And, of course, the U.S. should never engage in a war that isn't declared by Congress. Whether this is a situation that merited any intervention at all is what I was questioning-- no right or wrong answer. Just a judgment call I guess.

[satchelmcqueen]

from what i can tell id have to say 1950s-1970.

[Christian Liberty]

2040, when the US government was dissolved and anarcho-capitalism was implemented, to present.

[presence]

June 26 1876


Determined to resist the efforts of the U.S. Army to force them onto reservations, Indians under the leadership of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse wipe out Lieutenant Colonel George Custer and much of his 7th Cavalry at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

If you're talk'n the official country and not the continent, then I agree with Ronin Truth.

Yes I was referring to the official country's history, but the more I thought about it and the more I read members thoughts, the more difficult it was to find anytime that resembled "best".

I do like with this answer though...


The US has always sucked. So, has every other country that ever existed. The whole premise of a country is some men are superior to other men and those men decide what is "best" for all the people. I'm nearing 40 years old and still have not encountered one man that was better suited to make decisions for me than me.

I'm of the mindset anymore, that something like 20 thousand people is like the maximum limit any "community" should ever try to achieve, after that approximate number, it seems the separation between those deciding the macro level decisions becomes totally decoupled from the micro level, and that's the inherit problem of "Countries".

I think I've probably become to Anarchist in my thinking now for ronpaulforums. He's a politician afterall.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

My observation is that the US globally peaked around 1960. Some people in the late 1950s were already recognizing our imminent decline.

Part of the 1960s was recognizing this decline. People realized that the US could not sustain itself by continually hitting places like Vietnam.

Of course, people got tired of the sixties, and the miserable 1970s took over. That was no fun, so we reinvented ourselves in the 1980s. This decade was basically reliving our 1950s glory days.

Some people saw the folly of the 1980s, but did not know what to do. The technology of the 1990s and early 2000s was the perfect distraction to keep us from thinking too much about decline.

We could only go so far with technology, and so 2008 hit us pretty good. The apparent uptick right now is just that. We are still declining. Asia is up. America is down. There are still diehards who refuse to recognize this.

[bunklocoempire]

Up until the Whiskey Rebellion. 1791

[Ronin Truth]

I think a key point that decided this country's fate in terms of future global interventionism was the Marshall Plan which eventually led to the creation of NATO & EU.

Don't forget to add in the Rothschild's UN (NWO, one world government prototype and trial balloon, after the failed Wilson (Rothschild) League of Nations fiasco and embarrassment).

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

Up until the Whiskey Rebellion. 1791

Correct answer

[Christian Liberty]

The US has always sucked. So, has every other country that ever existed. The whole premise of a country is some men are superior to other men and those men decide what is "best" for all the people. I'm nearing 40 years old and still have not encountered one man that was better suited to make decisions for me than me.

I'm of the mindset anymore, that something like 20 thousand people is like the maximum limit any "community" should ever try to achieve, after that approximate number, it seems the separation between those deciding the macro level decisions becomes totally decoupled from the micro level, and that's the inherit problem of "Countries".

I think I've probably become to Anarchist in my thinking now for ronpaulforums. He's a politician afterall.


I think around 40% of us here are ancaps. Some people will give you grief for it, but hey, that's life. I still support Ron Paul... heck I even support Rand Paul though he's not nearly my ideal candidate. But as a principle, at the end of the day, I want a stateless society.

[Demigod]

My observation is that the US globally peaked around 1960. Some people in the late 1950s were already recognizing our imminent decline.

Part of the 1960s was recognizing this decline. People realized that the US could not sustain itself by continually hitting places like Vietnam.

Of course, people got tired of the sixties, and the miserable 1970s took over. That was no fun, so we reinvented ourselves in the 1980s. This decade was basically reliving our 1950s glory days.

Some people saw the folly of the 1980s, but did not know what to do. The technology of the 1990s and early 2000s was the perfect distraction to keep us from thinking too much about decline.

We could only go so far with technology, and so 2008 hit us pretty good. The apparent uptick right now is just that. We are still declining. Asia is up. America is down. There are still diehards who refuse to recognize this.

Every empire before the fall thought it self to be at the height of its power.Empires almost always fall apart fast rather than gradually.

[georgiaboy]

To the OP, I'd say the post Civil War until WW1 was America at a great time.

In my life, our finest moment thus far:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GweT2r3BGi8

And in retrospect, Ron Paul's entire time in office, which provided the life's work which led to such a grand event taking place.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think around 40% of us here are ancaps. Some people will give you grief for it, but hey, that's life. I still support Ron Paul... heck I even support Rand Paul though he's not nearly my ideal candidate. But as a principle, at the end of the day, I want a stateless society.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I am all-in for a totally stateless society, but I don't think the people at large are ready for it yet, and in their immaturity would make such a society even worse than the one we have now. Philosophically, I am a Voluntarist, along with Thomas Jefferson (before such a label existed) but I am not an An-Cap because I recognize the decrepit frailty of human nature in the era of sin. If the US Constitution is only fit for a moral people, then a stateless society must be super-moral to remain at peace.

Politically, I am a strict Constitutionalist. As I see it, once we get the government to abide by the Constitution, then we can go about working out maximizing liberty and prosperity, dialing it down over 1000 years less and less government and approaching the perfection of human liberty. Logically, I do not believe the world (and the people thereof) will themselves be fit for a stateless society until Kingdom come. I actually believe that one of the points of the Millennium will be to draw back human governance world wide back to the time of the Judges. IE 'a stateless society.' So sure, this is an ultimate goal, but I'm looking at 500 years from now for the first Solar Continent to declare individuals alone as sovereign.

My belief is that the best way to prepare for the government drawdown on Kingdom come, is to push the US Government back into the Constitution, flawed or not it's a lot better than what we've got, and once we establish the precedent for government obedience, we can work on the Constitution itself to maximize human liberty.

Will we ever be ready, as a people, for total liberty (a stateless society?) sure! probably half way into the Reign of Christ. This side of the Return, my goals are a little more humble. :)

[Southron]

May 20, 1861.

[Anti Federalist]

What Gunny said.


I think it's a little more complicated than that. I am all-in for a totally stateless society, but I don't think the people at large are ready for it yet, and in their immaturity would make such a society even worse than the one we have now. Philosophically, I am a Voluntarist, along with Thomas Jefferson (before such a label existed) but I am not an An-Cap because I recognize the decrepit frailty of human nature in the era of sin. If the US Constitution is only fit for a moral people, then a stateless society must be super-moral to remain at peace.

Politically, I am a strict Constitutionalist. As I see it, once we get the government to abide by the Constitution, then we can go about working out maximizing liberty and prosperity, dialing it down over 1000 years less and less government and approaching the perfection of human liberty. Logically, I do not believe the world (and the people thereof) will themselves be fit for a stateless society until Kingdom come. I actually believe that one of the points of the Millennium will be to draw back human governance world wide back to the time of the Judges. IE 'a stateless society.' So sure, this is an ultimate goal, but I'm looking at 500 years from now for the first Solar Continent to declare individuals alone as sovereign.

My belief is that the best way to prepare for the government drawdown on Kingdom come, is to push the US Government back into the Constitution, flawed or not it's a lot better than what we've got, and once we establish the precedent for government obedience, we can work on the Constitution itself to maximize human liberty.

Will we ever be ready, as a people, for total liberty (a stateless society?) sure! probably half way into the Reign of Christ. This side of the Return, my goals are a little more humble. :)

[John F Kennedy III]

Correct answer

I can tell you didn't read mine :p

[familydog]

American is a fiction. Asking when America was at it's best is like asking when Narnia or Middle Earth was at it's best.

With that said, there is no better time in "America" than right now. We live in a magical era. The internet allows us to have public or private conversations without information gatekeepers. These conversations can happen instantly and in real time. For the first time, the government has little to no control over the flow of ideas.

[phill4paul]

Millions of miles of land awaiting someone to join with. No government. No guarantees.

[phill4paul]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I am all-in for a totally stateless society, but I don't think the people at large are ready for it yet, and in their immaturity would make such a society even worse than the one we have now. Philosophically, I am a Voluntarist, along with Thomas Jefferson (before such a label existed) but I am not an An-Cap because I recognize the decrepit frailty of human nature in the era of sin. If the US Constitution is only fit for a moral people, then a stateless society must be super-moral to remain at peace.

Politically, I am a strict Constitutionalist. As I see it, once we get the government to abide by the Constitution, then we can go about working out maximizing liberty and prosperity, dialing it down over 1000 years less and less government and approaching the perfection of human liberty. Logically, I do not believe the world (and the people thereof) will themselves be fit for a stateless society until Kingdom come. I actually believe that one of the points of the Millennium will be to draw back human governance world wide back to the time of the Judges. IE 'a stateless society.' So sure, this is an ultimate goal, but I'm looking at 500 years from now for the first Solar Continent to declare individuals alone as sovereign.

My belief is that the best way to prepare for the government drawdown on Kingdom come, is to push the US Government back into the Constitution, flawed or not it's a lot better than what we've got, and once we establish the precedent for government obedience, we can work on the Constitution itself to maximize human liberty.

Will we ever be ready, as a people, for total liberty (a stateless society?) sure! probably half way into the Reign of Christ. This side of the Return, my goals are a little more humble. :)

The form of government that provides the most of what I believe should be correct is something I will work for. In this way I am a Constitutionalist.

[TheTexan]

America is at its best, now. Never before have there been so much quality TV and movies. The Transformers, anyone? Those movies weren't possible even 10 years ago.

And the internet? Never before have pictures of bare-breasted celebrities been in such great supply. This country rocks

[phill4paul]

This country rocks

Not yet. So close though that I can smell it. Freedom as it was intended is making a comeback! WE, and that is capitalized U.S. of frikken A., the people are gonna make this happen. Law and Order. We are about to rock..............and for those about to rock...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKhTk0IynHM

[John F Kennedy III]

Not yet. So close though that I can smell it. Freedom as it was intended is making a comeback! WE, and that is capitalized U.S. of frikken A., the people are gonna make this happen. Law and Order. We are about to rock..............and for those about to rock...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKhTk0IynHM

AC/DC just finished their new album. With Angus's son Stevie in place of Malcolm, who has some undisclosed illness and almost died. Actually he might still be in the hospital.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ac-dc-share-new-album-details-malcolm-young-health-update-20140709

[Danke]

America is at its best, now. Never before have there been so much quality TV and movies. The Transformers, anyone? Those movies weren't possible even 10 years ago.

And the internet? Never before have pictures of bare-breasted celebrities been in such great supply. This country rocks

ty

[phill4paul]

AC/DC just finished their new album. With Angus's son Stevie in place of Malcolm, who has some undisclosed illness and almost died. Actually he might still be in the hospital.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ac-dc-share-new-album-details-malcolm-young-health-update-20140709

Good to here. I made an R.I.P. thread about AC/DC but can't seem to searchfu it. If you find it please add in this info! +rep.

[Original_Intent]

After the next revolution.

[Jamesiv1]

Best for whom?
Right?

[TheCount]

This country was at its best during a time before I was alive, a time which really was not that great but has since been romanticized to the point that it bears no resemblance to the way that it actually was.


Also, that time was before the advent of widespread video recording, so that nobody has proof of what things were actually like, and therefore nobody can contradict my romantic notions.

[John F Kennedy III]

Good to here. I made an R.I.P. thread about AC/DC but can't seem to searchfu it. If you find it please add in this info! +rep.

Will do. Theyve been my favorite band since I was a kid. Grueling waits between albums.

[Anti Federalist]

AC/DC just finished their new album. With Angus's son Stevie in place of Malcolm, who has some undisclosed illness and almost died. Actually he might still be in the hospital.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ac-dc-share-new-album-details-malcolm-young-health-update-20140709

He's out and recovering, I swore I read somewhere when it happened that he suffered a stroke of some kind.

[pcosmar]

Between 1957 and 1960,, to the best of my memory.

Things have gone downhill from then.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I am all-in for a totally stateless society, but I don't think the people at large are ready for it yet, and in their immaturity would make such a society even worse than the one we have now. Philosophically, I am a Voluntarist, along with Thomas Jefferson (before such a label existed) but I am not an An-Cap because I recognize the decrepit frailty of human nature in the era of sin. If the US Constitution is only fit for a moral people, then a stateless society must be super-moral to remain at peace.

Politically, I am a strict Constitutionalist. As I see it, once we get the government to abide by the Constitution, then we can go about working out maximizing liberty and prosperity, dialing it down over 1000 years less and less government and approaching the perfection of human liberty. Logically, I do not believe the world (and the people thereof) will themselves be fit for a stateless society until Kingdom come. I actually believe that one of the points of the Millennium will be to draw back human governance world wide back to the time of the Judges. IE 'a stateless society.' So sure, this is an ultimate goal, but I'm looking at 500 years from now for the first Solar Continent to declare individuals alone as sovereign.

My belief is that the best way to prepare for the government drawdown on Kingdom come, is to push the US Government back into the Constitution, flawed or not it's a lot better than what we've got, and once we establish the precedent for government obedience, we can work on the Constitution itself to maximize human liberty.

Will we ever be ready, as a people, for total liberty (a stateless society?) sure! probably half way into the Reign of Christ. This side of the Return, my goals are a little more humble. :)

I'd take my chance with immaturity before malevolent intent.

[HOLLYWOOD]

The actual intent of the 4th of July was to commemorate the bravery and balls of our Declaration of Independence from tyranny



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.




In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, 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. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor
http://kwout.com/cutout/f/kp/rd/c36_bor.jpg

[oyarde]

1760's

[heavenlyboy34]

1760's

That sounds about right.

[bolil]

December 2nd, 2042. The future is history wrapped in a present. DURRRRRRRR. Yeah, before the natives were wiped out--everything that followed that is tainted as far as I am concerned.

[Natural Citizen]

1987-1989. Well...that is what I would say. :)

[liberty2897]

pre-WWII

[fr33]

American is a fiction. Asking when America was at it's best is like asking when Narnia or Middle Earth was at it's best.

With that said, there is no better time in "America" than right now. We live in a magical era. The internet allows us to have public or private conversations without information gatekeepers. These conversations can happen instantly and in real time. For the first time, the government has little to no control over the flow of ideas.

Our incarceration rate is insane. What's more valuable? Physical freedom or dreaming about freedom?

[fr33]

Before European colonialism is my answer.

[JustinTime]

Before European colonialism is my answer.

Slavery, war, tyranny, the strong forcing their will on the weak, all of that existed from the moment the first people set foot on the continent. Contrary to Hollywood the pre-Columbian era wasnt just wise and peaceful people sitting around the teepee and smoking the peace pipe.

The best era, albeit brief, was under the AOC. Things were still fairly decent though, but took a turn for the worse in 1913 and its been a slow progression downhill from there.

[Southron]

There is really a dividing line in American history.

I think we had a republic prior to Lincoln and now we have a nation. It's hard to compare the two periods because we have never experienced living in a republic of sovereign states.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Every empire before the fall thought it self to be at the height of its power.Empires almost always fall apart fast rather than gradually.

I agree. This is a fast decline. The US started to decline almost immediately after it peaked.

[scottditzen]

Between 1957 and 1960,, to the best of my memory.

Things have gone downhill from then.

Censorship was a lot worse back then.

[kcchiefs6465]

I agree, that was a very prosperous time for our country. I wasn't questioning that at all. It was more a curiosity from other noninterventionists as to why they feel that the U.S. should not have intervened in the Korean War?
I am not particularly versed on the Korean War (it often slips analysis in what I've yet read) but regardless the population being taken from, that is, wealth squandered, at the behest of at best, a handful of unaccountable representatives of people who cannot be named or held accountable either, to finance another country's defense is particularly egregious regardless of what promises said unaccountable representatives offered and when.

The justification you are using could be used for intervention in virtually anything. From the continuance of Social Security, welfare programs, to providing the military industrial complex income, to actually paying the interest on 'our' national debt. Considering that no one is legitimately contracted to these debts, aside from perhaps the representatives who can be named as having borrowed the money and their estates, I'd say there is no true obligation to any of it. If Korea was promised something by someone, perhaps those someones should have traveled there and tried their damnedest to keep their word? And for the few (or many) of the era who wished to protect the boundaries at the 38th, they should have gone as well rather than involving the entirety of this country within their vision of how borders should look and without socially contracting (as illegitimate as it is, it doesn't much matter in the current world) their fellow neighbors with an unpayable debt.

Though I certainly never contracted anything for the Korean War.

Aside from that, the means that were used in Korea were atrocious. Agent Orange, various biological contaminants. Look at the mess that it is now. South Korea doesn't even want 'us' there. 'We' won't leave and continue to spend millions of dollar annually. Billions when they get their war game, masturbatory shows going on.

I really should be better versed on the conflict in Korea but frankly I find North Korea's military prowess comical and find the whole thing rather uneventful compared to even recent military disasters. As a non-interventionist, in the true sense of the word (versus neo-isolationist, etc.), I oppose the war happening on moral grounds.

[William Tell]

North Korea is laughable left to it's own devices, but they have long been getting backup from Russia and China. Much as South Korea has been aided by the US.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I would peg it as the period between the Civil War and WWI. We were pretty much at peace. We had about as much freedom as we've ever had, and then started losing it right after this period. Immigrants were arriving in droves, becoming Americans, and contributing to a rapidly expanding economy. Ever since that period, we have never been as free or as prosperous.

Immigrants were actually kind of staying with each other and carrying their traditions on, which prompted the first wave of major American immigration laws in the 1800s, which only got worse as the 20th century rolled in. Immigrants not being American and white enough was also one of the excuses used to start federal healthcare intervention in the 1920s.

Plus towards the end of the 1800s, the US government started colonizing the Pacific islands and started going full blown empire mode.

[GunnyFreedom]

North Korea is laughable left to it's own devices, but they have long been getting backup from Russia and China. Much as South Korea has been aided by the US.

It's a little more complicated than that. A ground war in NK would be sinkhole hell. Unless done perfectly, a ground war in North Korea will absorb whole brigades and divisions into the soil. Mind you they have basically zero capability to project power. However they have demonstrated a nuclear capability, and they are working on long range missiles, with the extremely limited resources they have. Even lacking resources, there is the internet, and so it is only a matter of time. We will see better missile tests from them before such a thing becomes a threat. If Uncle Sugar doesn't classify it into oblivion. Will they decide to act in lunacy? Only time will tell, but don't assume they would be afraid to because they will be easily conquered. They will NOT be easily conquered and they know it.

NK has a vast underground tunnel system almost as intense as our interstate freeway system. They can transport entire Army formations from basically any spot to any spot in the country in minutes. They hold their entire air arsenals in the heart of mountains behind blast doors, and are airborne at full speed before they emerge from underground.

If (presuming a worst case scenario for the sake of the argument) these guys start popping off nuclear missiles at the United States, chances are some antimissile system we've never heard of will kill it, but then it will be war. There is a way to win it, and I actually know how to do it even minimizing bloodshed some on their side and especially on ours, but it is very targeted strategy so chances are most likely, given our tendency to fight the last war tomorrow, it would be the bloodiest war in American history. Mass and maneuver will not work in NK like we have grown accustomed to everywhere else. We will be unable to take out their air power, even if they are overmatched in the air, our doctrine relies on taking them out before they take air. Break one point of doctrine and things have a way of happening.

So yeah, NK has basically zero ability to project power, but their whole national infrastructure is dug in for WW4, and they are doing their level best (retarded though they are) to put a nuke on an ICBM. When they make it happen, they will either keep it as a chip in the game, or one of Kim Kim's voices will wake him up from a drunken slumber and tell him to go push the button, for the glory of Sun Myung Moon. I don't think it will be armageddon, but I think NK is liable to turn out more insane and more ferocious than people give them credit for.

Just something to watch on the horizon for indicators. If they start going BSI there is no telling what might happen. "Loose Cannon" in the dictionary and the entire Kim dynasty has a family portrait. No fearmongering, just rational analysis. I was in a position to know a lot about NK once. The ruling family is raised to always live on a hair trigger. The servant misses some dirt they can be shot where they kneel begging, and the next servant comes to clean up. Usually though they systematically collect dissenters and unpleasants and run them in front of the regular rifle squad. The reason that is relevant is because if gives you an idea of what is going on inside this kid's head.

I don't want anybody to be 'afraid' of NK. Even in the worst case scenario, their 'big dream stick' is probably going to get taken out by some classified antimissile system, so even then I have no expectation of mushroom clouds in the US. However, these people are legit insane, and if their tether finally trips one day and they start lobbing nukes, you already know we will be marching to war. If you think a ground war in NK is going to be easy, then you will get a profound education. Their 'war infrastructure' is basically 'safe' from even a full on nuclear attack by us, which we would never do even if they launched a nuke at us due to the proximity of China and South Korea.

[William Tell]

It's a little more complicated than that. A ground war in NK would be sinkhole hell. Unless done perfectly, a ground war in North Korea will absorb whole brigades and divisions into the soil. Mind you they have basically zero capability to project power. However they have demonstrated a nuclear capability, and they are working on long range missiles, with the extremely limited resources they have. Even lacking resources, there is the internet, and so it is only a matter of time. We will see better missile tests from them before such a thing becomes a threat. If Uncle Sugar doesn't classify it into oblivion. Will they decide to act in lunacy? Only time will tell, but don't assume they would be afraid to because they will be easily conquered. They will NOT be easily conquered and they know it.

NK has a vast underground tunnel system almost as intense as our interstate freeway system. They can transport entire Army formations from basically any spot to any spot in the country in minutes. They hold their entire air arsenals in the heart of mountains behind blast doors, and are airborne at full speed before they emerge from underground.

If (presuming a worst case scenario for the sake of the argument) these guys start popping off nuclear missiles at the United States, chances are some antimissile system we've never heard of will kill it, but then it will be war. There is a way to win it, and I actually know how to do it even minimizing bloodshed some on their side and especially on ours, but it is very targeted strategy so chances are most likely, given our tendency to fight the last war tomorrow, it would be the bloodiest war in American history. Mass and maneuver will not work in NK like we have grown accustomed to everywhere else. We will be unable to take out their air power, even if they are overmatched in the air, our doctrine relies on taking them out before they take air. Break one point of doctrine and things have a way of happening.

So yeah, NK has basically zero ability to project power, but their whole national infrastructure is dug in for WW4, and they are doing their level best (retarded though they are) to put a nuke on an ICBM. When they make it happen, they will either keep it as a chip in the game, or one of Kim Kim's voices will wake him up from a drunken slumber and tell him to go push the button, for the glory of Sun Myung Moon. I don't think it will be armageddon, but I think NK is liable to turn out more insane and more ferocious than people give them credit for.

Just something to watch on the horizon for indicators. If they start going BSI there is no telling what might happen. "Loose Cannon" in the dictionary and the entire Kim dynasty has a family portrait. No fearmongering, just rational analysis. I was in a position to know a lot about NK once. The ruling family is raised to always live on a hair trigger. The servant misses some dirt they can be shot where they kneel begging, and the next servant comes to clean up. Usually though they systematically collect dissenters and unpleasants and run them in front of the regular rifle squad. The reason that is relevant is because if gives you an idea of what is going on inside this kid's head.

I don't want anybody to be 'afraid' of NK. Even in the worst case scenario, their 'big dream stick' is probably going to get taken out by some classified antimissile system, so even then I have no expectation of mushroom clouds in the US. However, these people are legit insane, and if their tether finally trips one day and they start lobbing nukes, you already know we will be marching to war. If you think a ground war in NK is going to be easy, then you will get a profound education. Their 'war infrastructure' is basically 'safe' from even a full on nuclear attack by us, which we would never do even if they launched a nuke at us due to the proximity of China and South Korea.

Good points. I was only thinking about them waging offensive war against South Korea. Defense is always a different matter. And I have someone very close to me who knows even more about North Korea than you, believe me.:)

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't have the energy, Gunny.

I would disagree with a few portions of your assessment, though.

Most notably them "lobbing nuclear weapons", being particularly suicidal, and just their general military ability.

I can hardly edit a youtube video yet could produce a propaganda piece better than their government sanctioned ones. Their country sits largely in the dark.

A ground war in any foreign country would be largely a quagmire. Why? Because they are familiar with the landscape and have had time to take up strategic positioning.

[William Tell]

South Korea has gun control and stuff, which is really, really dumb.

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't have the energy, Gunny.

I would disagree with a few portions of your assessment, though.

Most notably them "lobbing nuclear weapons", being particularly suicidal, and just their general military ability.

From their perspective, it is not suicidal. Their nation is basically built to survive a sustained nuclear attack by the United States. It is highly unlikely to the nth degree that they would choose to launch a nuclear missile, but if you knew the Kim reign, then you would know that it is not even close to 'impossible,' as you seem to imply. And that does not even account for 'accidental' launches. When a war-level event has a better than zero chance of happening, then you should prepare some contingency for it. I always roll my eyes when I see people, even here who talk about NK being a pushover if the day came. But that spoken in ignorance.


I can hardly edit a youtube video yet could produce a propaganda piece better than their government sanctioned ones. Their country sits largely in the dark.

Sure you can, and sure they do. And at any moment 95% of their military infrastructure is buried deep beneath mountains, heavily manned, and well lit to brilliance.


A ground war in any foreign country would be largely a quagmire. Why? Because they are familiar with the landscape and have had time to take up strategic positioning.

NK is not 'any' country though. Our pain on engaging a ground war in NK would be way out of proportion to an 'ordinary' country. They haven't quite fortified every single meter of their country, but they are getting around to it. It's not just a quagmire with dropping squads, it's wide open sink holes where whole battalions and light regiments dropping into oblivion. It's not the same as anything we have ever seen, not even last time in Korea.

It's all fortification though, even if they have subterranean mobility. It's not itself mobile. They are as feeble as a butterfly outside their own borders. If something goes horribly wrong, there will be boots on the ground in NK. And unless we do it a very specific way, that war will go horribly horribly wrong.