Talk:United States/Introduction

message: Since the late 20th century it has eclipsed all other nations in terms of relative economic, political, and military power as well as cultural influence.
I think that's missing the point a bit.  Maybe since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been the sole hyperpower, but it's not like this is 100% new status.  The US has been a superpower for the entire 20th century, I don't think any other country could really be considered a superpower throughout the century (the Soviet Union was one from end of WWII through the 80s, perhaps).  Finding a succinct way to say that might be better than picking an exact point at which the US became a hyperpower (which seems to be the way that sentence has headed).  — Daniel Quinlan 21:28, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)
Besides, eclipsed is not the appropriate word - it would imply that only the US is visible now, which is false. Furthermore, the US certainly hasn't overcome all other nations as a collective, but rather as individuals.
David.Monniaux 10:00, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  The US didn't become a super-power until at least the end of WW2, maybe in the years immediately following WW2. Exactly when, who can say for sure on such a description.  In 1900-45, the US was a power, certainly, but not significantly greater than any other power.  Remember, Britain and France at the time still had a substantial empire, and Germany and Russia were not exactly weak in comparison. aussietiger 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing the point a bit 

message: Should we still describe the US as having "low unemployment"? Tuf-Kat 02:24, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
* This is a description of the characteristics of the US economy over the long term and not a description of current statistics I think.  Even so, the average unemployment rate for the US from 1960-1995 was around 6% and we are not that far off of that number right now coming out of a cyclical downturn.  I would say its a little early to be saying that this characteristic of the US economy has changed drastically enough to re-characterize our overall description of the US economy.ark30inf 02:41, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Low unemployment

message: "The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 and fought a revolution to achieve it." 
The U.S. got their independence from England/Britian 
so should be changed to:
"The U.S. originated from 13 colonies in British North America that declared their independence in 1776 from English Britian and fought a revolution to achieve it."
English Britian??? aussietiger 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Incorrect first statement 

message: It is considered to be the oldest constitutional republic in the world, and has existed for over 200 years Anything being put in the opening paragraph shouldn't be a matter of contention. Either it is definitely the oldest constitutional republic in the world, in which case we take out 'considered to be'; or it is one of the oldest, in which case we say that; or we remove this claim from the intro entirely and leave it do be dealt with in the appropriate section. Nomist 19:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute the claim that the USA is the oldest still existing constitutional republic. (Ref. to the Library of Congress website at  ). I.e. the above part should be removed or rephrased to "one of the oldest". The fact that San Marino is a rather small country probably lead to this being overlooked. Travelbird 02:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article on San Marino says it was founded in AD 301, but it doesn't mention a constitution. I'm thinking that it came after the US. Maybe we could say the the US has the oldest constitutional government. Jaxad0127 02:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it does (look right at the top for "Constitution"). The date given is October 8, 1600. That would be over 150 years prior to the US Constitution of of 1787. I'd still prefer one "of the oldest" because that preempts the discussion about what constitues a valid "constitutional government" . Travelbird 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't see it anywhere in the San Marino article. Jaxad0127 05:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not on the San Marino article but on the article by the Library of Congress at http://www.loc.gov/law/guide/sanmarino.html#constitution Travelbird 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, but from the looks of it, the government was reorganized in 1926. That would still leave the US Government as the oldest. Jaxad0127 16:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The government wasn't reorganised, rather an electional law was passed. That would be similar to an American amendment to the constitution, only that (as in many countries), details of how the government is elected are not included in the constitution of San Marino, but are organized in a seperate law. Travelbird 18:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest constitutional republic?