Actions speak louder than "stands for". That's my point.
That's fine, but it has nothing to do with my point - which is that those actions are not the foundations of this country.
But this country you see today was built over many years by weak-moraled white men who abused their ability to have power and influence over other people, and that is all there is to it.
Humanity is generally weak-moraled. That's why our constitution is so brilliant, it recognizes human nature.
When you have nearly 400 million people and the rest of the world watching you via technological advancements (media, internet, etc.), you bend a hell of a lot further than you do when you are an army general with rifles and cannons facing a handful of native Americans with arrows and knives.
Oh come now, we
still have enough firepower to make the rest of the world look like they're holding arrows and knives. Don't confuse difficulty occupying Iraq while attempting not to oppress them with the ability to mass-murder. We have the latter for sure.
Likewise, when there are only a million or so people in the country, you don't consider entertaining the bold groups who are angry that you treat women with no respect the same way you would when the entire world is watching or angry over that matter, calling for you to step up the standard of morality/equality, etc.
...except we
lead that standard. We didn't change our ways because the rest of the world forced us to, we did it from within with a framework that emboldened that change.
...to say that this country is truly "founded" on the principles in the Bill of Rights, etc., is not an accurate statement.
It is
literally an accurate statement.
A nation becomes 'great' in our world by prospering, and we prospered by conquering unjustly the same way that many other nations have also done throughout history. If you deny that, you need to open your eyes. We are not some country that "does it right".
Oh but we are. Do you think that we have some sort of natural resources that the rest of the world does not? The middle east is rich with resources that the rest of the world wants, and it does not seem to help them. Nothing that we have conquered has made us great. Take a trip to El Paso Texas sometime and drive down the 10 freeway (I did this only a few days ago). On one side of the freeway you will see Mexico and all its poverty. You will see "houses" made out of rusted sheets of tin and tarps, stacked right next to each other. You will see this:
^ This is Jaurez Mexico, and it can be seen within a stone's throw of El Paso... this v:
Natural resources? Is it because the US "conquered" resources that Mexico did not? These "cities" are sitting essentially on the same land. The only difference between the two is the government that runs them. The US government has a judicial system and government that recognizes the rights of the people. This is what capitalism represents.
That is the difference between these two cities. Not land, not resources, not which of our ancestors killed more people... just government.
America does not set the standard for moral dignity, quite the contrary. Who massacred the native Americans at Sitting Bull? The American army. Who enslaved African Americans and kept them as slaves? The American Government. Who detained the Japanese on our own soil and only recently admitted this? The U.S. government. The list goes on and on, countless atrocities carried out in the name of keeping America on top or prospering those with the advantage, and which are completely contrary to the ideas set forth in the Bill of Rights. Beautifully idealized documents can be just as cheap as any other form of talk, actions are what decide things and reveal the truth.
600,000 Americans died fighting a war to free the enslaved Africans. Those aren't their brothers and sisters they died to free, it was a lineage brought to this country from another continent, and we died freeing them anyway.
I don't see how you can make the argument that America was founded on the philosophy of killing the natives, or that it was founded on the philosophy of enslaving the Africans. These are things that happened, sure, but they happened in opposition to the founding principles. Principles that we lived by and practiced extensively, but not completely... at least not immediately completely.
The concept that all men are created equal and the we have inalienable rights
was the driving force behind the foundation of our nation. It was in direct opposition to Monarchy, where some men are born with power and can control those who are not.
That is what founded this nation, and it is influenced the entire world for good. We have, at times, struggled to live up to that ideal, but it remains our goal, and we lead the world in achieving it.
The Constitution has not made us great. Economic prosperity, technological advancement, and the exploitation of other people and cultures without reprimand has built up what you see today.
See Jaurez above. Our economic property comes from one thing and one thing alone - the recognition of human rights. Where you see capitalism (the economics of human rights), you see prosperity. Where you see authoritative governments and the absence of a judicial system that protects rights (eg: Mexico... or more directly... Africa), you see what happens when cultures are built on the exploitation of other people.
And frankly our society is not filled with patriotic people, it's filled with spoiled people who are most angry when you take away their luxuries.
Generally speaking this is true. But it doesn't help your point at all.
...founding fathers ring a bell? You are removing a group of morally destitute men's work from the group of morally destitute men, Plato would suggest not doing that. They were bad people, and their document reflects it.
Baby, bathwater.
Ask yourself: What fuels a political campaign? What does it require to sustain itself? And where does that (money) come from? And on what conditions?
). 
