My arguments were only about what the argument of legal rights, nothing else. I actually have three friends in Guam and I feel I'm more educated about the situation there than most Americans on the mainland. So thank you for acknowledging the soundness of my arguments, and keep in mind that I wasn't touching the socio-economic aspects of the situation, just John Oliver's misguided presentation of the facts.

Personally I'd love to see PR and Guam join. As for "why"... there are two main camps that I think might be right.

1)They honestly don't care. This mixes somewhat with the "they prefer the benefits of living in a Territory over what they'd gain by becoming a state." For example, if you live in PR and all of your income is made within the bounds of PR, then you don't have to pay US Federal Income Taxes. To me that doesn't really seem like a big deal. I think the people in this group would lean towards statehood if they weren't given the option to remain a territory (i.e. statehood or independence only).

2)They seem the fact that the US is still there as a remnant of military imperialism and they don't want to reward the US. In 1899 Samoa was carved up between Germany and the US during the stupid Kaiser's chest-pounding Imperialism phase that led up to WW1. Puerto Rico and Guam were both taken from the Spanish in the Spanish-American war. Cuba and the Philippines were as well, and those two chose independence and are now independent nations (Cuba was a special situation). The Virgin Islands were bought from Denmark during WW1 and the Marianas were taken from Japan during WW2. So... maybe these places feel like they aren't fully American. But honestly, I think that (with a possible exception of a large portion of Puerto Rico) this isn't the case. Or maybe they simply don't think they'd be an economically viable nation if they left. Look to Nauru as a great example of how fragile a small island's economy can be.

Puerto Rico had a really weird vote in 2012 that seemed to indicate statehood... but the ballot was horribly illegal (you can't have multiple, dependent questions of differing types on the same ballot)... so we'll have to wait til they redo it again with competence to see if they really mean it.

Add to all of this the comfort of the status quo. There's a certain philosophy of finding the sucky stuff that you're used to more palatable than the unknown.

But honestly... I don't know.

While I find it entertaining and hilarious, this is simply horrible strawmanning. The US has one of the simplest systems of inclusion of any major nation. He either is not understanding, or he's simply being a demagogue about it.

It's really, really simple.

Want full rights? Then join permanently. Become a state. It's literally the exact same thing that Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii did.

Guam, the Marianas, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands have the EXACT SAME OPTIONS as those states listed above had when those states were territories.

Samoa is different because they don't meet the minimum population requirement (60K) to be bumped up to qualify for statehood.

They're pretty close tho.

But yeah... it has nothing to do with race or bigotry or anything like that. If John Oliver can't understand that simple system, then how does he explain the different rights of citizens in the British Overseas Territories vs the British Crown Dependencies, or how Wales and Scotland are sort of countries and sort of not countries.

I'm assuming he can understand the wonky UK system, and if that's so, he should easily understand the simple US system (want full rights, vote to join permanently).

Just last year, there was a movement in Guam to call for a vote of statehood. Basically a glorified (but meaningful) petition. They didn't get the required % of people wanting to vote, so, in essence, Guam doesn't even care enough to vote for statehood.

They have every right that every other territory has had in terms of what category they fall under.

Basically, just look at states as permanent (and thusly more rights as well as more responsibilities) and territories as temporary until they decide what they want to be. Or territories can stay in limbo forever.

Guam, PR, and the rest can go the route of Hawaii (okay, that was naked imperialism but whatever) or the route of Cuba and the Philippines... or just stay how they are.

Not sure about why this is considered impressive. Geeky American teenagers do this all the time, just while carrying instruments and making music on them. So... this is just Japanese adults in tuxs doing stuff that requires about 30% of the skill of geeky American teenagers. If anything it's just sad.

I love reading this kind of idiocy. These are the same people that point to signature of the Sec of Treasury as "proof" that our tender is *NOT* legal. The holes in this "logic" are so insane that I won't even attempt to point them all out. I'll start with the very first one.

America started the War of 1812. Britain did *NOT* declare war on America. They were a bit busy with this guy Napoleon in 1812 and the LAST thing they wanted was a new war in the colonies. But we wanted to invade Canada.

These are the same idiots who claim to know, factually, that the income tax is unconstitutional because the 16th amendment was not properly processed.

It's all just stupid.

I'm pretty sure that while the guy in white is a jerk, the guy in blue was a friggin idiot.

Didn't a small town in Vermont indict Bush *AND* Cheney a year or two ago? I don't think that indicting a sitting president/VP will mean anything unless it's done by Congress, and the Democrats don't have the balls to do anything like that. However... this type of stuff should be fairly common in just a few weeks... unless Obama pulls a Ford.

Holy crap... and people say *I* have too much time on my hands.

>> ^vairetube:
I'll never tell another person what they can do as long as they are not harming others physically. Period.


And the quick, correct response to that is "So it's okay to have sex w/ animals and furniture?"

That kind of blanket statement is dangerous.

Did anyone else here wish that Savage had said in his parting words "I think it's appropriate that the Mormon is the one who brought up the topic of bigomy"? (referencing the 3 dads, 3 moms statement)

Nice.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

The man who ran the guy over: Arrestable for Hit and Run, Assault with A Deadly Weapon, and numerous traffic violations.


Add the word "Aggravated" to that. It's a much lesser crime when you nearly kill someone that just beat the living snot out of you than when you do it just for fun or because he cut you off in the intersection.

>> ^faceman:
Woah. Their accents sound nothing like Australian... clearly South African. You yanks need to get out more


You know... BisH0p69 had the right idea. They *ARE* similar. We're not talking about confusing Scottish with Romanian here. Try getting over yourself and your internet-chic Yank-hating and simply admit that they're somewhat similar.

Sure... if you're around them all the time, it's easy. But I don't get on you about not telling the difference between a Cajun and an Appalachian hick.

Obviously there's no reason you'd be around an Appalachian hick (thank your lucky stars) but my point has been demonstrated.

That being said, thinker's comment cracked me up.

2) The search might have been fully warranted.
Why? She was a victim. She shouldn't have been strip searched or arrested. *It's absurd to strip search someone who hasn't been charged with a crime.
**It's called possible/probable cause. By "might have been fully warranted" he means you don't know the reason they did it. If cops saw me smoking weed and then I slipped it into my pocket... guess what... they have the right to search my pockets. WITHOUT ME BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. If I shove that joint up my ass... guess what else they have a right to do.

3) I didn't see any excessive force. Yes, she was being held down and the "pretzel position" is simply a technique that allows one officer to control her legs. That doesn't mean she was in pain from that.
*She was taken down and immobilized. That by itself is excessive force.
**Did you just say that being immobilized is automatically excessive force? Can you *REALLY* not think of a single situation where cops would legitimately need to immobilize someone? C'mon... you can't possibly be that stupid/naive

I'd be scared to driving somethinhg that sounds that horrible. I know gearheads would find the flaming exhaust cool but... gawd that's an ugly sound.

Not sure why everyone keeps asking "How is he still on the air?"
Two words.

-Fox
-News

"Fox News" needs to enter the American vocabulary as an oxymoron like "Miltary Intelligence" and "Microsoft Works." This is the network whose "news" programs (and even THEY admit that O'Reilly isn't honestly news, it's editorial and commentary) have anchors who give their opinion every 5 seconds and sensationalize things to the point where the Enquirer and the Star would blush. They openly mock stories and spoon-feed their viewers exactly what they should be thinking. While I'll be the first to admit that the verbage on most Republican-labelled-liberal media outlets are offensive to the concept of journalism (CNN, his name is PRESIDENT Bush, not Mister Bush), Fox News is more biased (to the right) than most of the "liberal media" that Republicans hate so much. Just this week, the Washington Post, the poster-child for the "liberal media" that the Republicans love to hate, called Pelosi "foolish" for her little trip to Syria. When was the last time Fox News called Dubya "potentially criminal" or even "irresponsible"?

Yeah... thought so.

But yeah... O'Reilly is a moron and a juvenile.