-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Huh? No one claimed America use to not be as "free" as it was today, but slavery is no longer legal, and women can vote. Also censorship on the internet? I've NEVER been blocked on the internet, unlike several other countries in the world. Also the Government isn't based around that, there just so happens to be a lot of people elected with those attitudes, but there are a lot that disagree.
2 -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Please tell me which nation on Earth is free from sin? I remember last decade when most of Europe was upset at the US I thought about the French, the Italians and others who collaborated with the Nazis and I shook my head in disbelief.
2 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: What does free even mean? Anarchy? Free thought?
-
@Anonymous: Um...I said that for people that think America is such an oppressive regime don't realize the luxury of the freedom they have to express their strong distaste for the country because it the country allows it. Try saying the same about a country overseas and not expecting to be added to a list of enemies of the state or end up with someone at your front doorstep demanding you answer some questions.
You'd be lucky if you didn't just up and vanish in most other places.32 1 -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Oh god don't even start. To reason with an anarchist is like smacking your head against a brick wall. Actually you'd make more progress doing the latter.
31 -
Anonymous
@ItchyBarracuda: Yeah, you don't need to tell me what you said. I can read it right up there. And I think you're right about people taking American freedoms for granted. But the idea that people are abusing or taking advantage of free speech by saying incorrect or just different things than you is a pretty narrow way of looking at it.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: >> Slavery in it's past
>Is now gone thanks to REPUBLICANS, of all people
>>As well as women's rights issues
>Women's suffrage was voted in by REPUBLICANS, of all people
>>Government based around Christianity (pro-life, anti-gay, etc.)
>implying it isn't because the majority of people in the nation are Christian, and vote for people who have similar beliefs, just as you would probably vote for an atheist (which, by the way, I am an atheist, so don't judge)
>>Censorship problems with internet, movies, pretty much any art-form imaginable
>implying Europe hasn't implemented similar legislation -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
@Anonymous: But opinion is subjective. If you don't stand for something, you fall for anything. So you telling me my opinion is wrong is also, opinion. So I fail to understand the point you're making.
I'm not some narrow minded "murica fuck yeah" redneck that isn't cultured and hasn't been outside of this country. I've spent extensive amounts of time in England, Germany, Canada, Italy, France studying abroad and for leisure. I happen to understand a thing or two about how other countries report and percieve themselves as well as other countries.
It's my belief (and has always been the definition) that an opinion is a personal feeling or representation on any given subject based on FACT. To say "durrhurr americas stupid cuz it tihnks iss bettr den every1 n every1s fat n stoopid" simply because it's the "cool" thing to do, or for an American to say "durrhurr murica fuck yeah every countree iz dumb were numbr 1" without being to verbalize why, is completely assinine and idiotic.
All these kinds of conversations do is add to the fire of misinformation and general personal insecurity about one's superiority by vicariously living through the "image" of one country. Try being an individual for once, people. I mean really. I don't judge someone based on their country or their skin color, their politics or their intelligence. I treat them like a human being, like I would anyone else.
That's why I deem explaining all these things to strangers on the internet generally a waste of time. Because most of the time people are, in fact, too ignorant to even begin to understand the points being discussed of how they're being exploited by institutions with ulterior motives, keeping people in this rut of "Us vs Them" that accomplishes nothing except further division, based on petty childish nonsense.2 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Pretty much everywhere else. Even on the muslim countries, the difference is that they have different traditions. America is a country where freedom is an illusion and the masses just do what they are told without actually thinking
21 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@ItchyBarracuda: So essentially because you are a comfortable slave, you are not a slave?
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: awwww how cute! Let me help you with that though
http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/org/origins/reorg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganization_Plan_No._3
Nixon was also the first to implement affirmative action. It's amazing how much Americans don't know about their own country. -
Anonymous
-
@Anonymous: you mean he passed radical new laws due to public demand and not his own principles? Now thats what I call democracy.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: if you don't know.. it must be a sign that you are not. Do you feel allowed to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else?
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: America is a Federal Constitutional Republic that uses a form of Representative Democracy.
How are you a republic instead of a democracy. This absolutist rubbish [republic not a democracy, capitalism good socialism bad] is a particularly sad failing of your culture.
The only -ism in modern politics that matters is synretism, perpetuating this false left/right capitalist/communist claptrap is only holding you back.3 -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Actually, the difference between a representative republic and a "Democracy" is that in a "Democracy", 51% of the population can decide to oppress and steal from the 49% and/or squander the treasury. That is why we didn't start out with a "Democracy". It's getting to be that way now, though, unfortunately.
2 -
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Well, to be fair, a republic isn't a true democracy... as you said it is a representative democracy. So, if we give the benefit of the doubt to Anon then his comment isn't absurd, just worded ineffectively. I personally would not call the States a democracy, but I would call it democratic.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Actually... um... yeah.. hm. Majority governments that control 51% of the vote fall into this issue. The United States employs a two party system with and laws that attempt to nullify the majority control issue because the winning party is the majority party. This has plenty of ups and downs.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: >Representative republic
Look the terms are fairly clear, Federal Consititutional Republic, Representative Democracy.
A fun fact btw, the "democracy" that your forefathers were afraid of was direct democracy, I personally deeply wonder what the Rontards think of that as it must hurt that everytime they quote about the perils of democracy and the ability of demagouges to lead fools, they are actually talking about themselves, and their desire to invest the mob with more power to control the future of the nation.
Your 51% etc rule has nothing to do with the fact that you are a republic instead of a democracy [when its clear you are both], and is because of your constitution and related laws, neither of which are specific to republics, and are equally found in constitutional monarchies.
1 1 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Actually if we were being strictly fair, instead of simply polite, i'd whip my cock out and start slapping him into next week for that purile bullshit that is being peddled, too often it seems, by people trying to redefine the english language for fun and profit.
To be accurate, when talking about a republic, while the term has taken on multiple meanings, generally in the modern context we are talking primarily talking about whether the head of state is a president [or other equivilant title used when supreme power in the state is controlled by the citizenry of their representative] or a king or other equivilant hereditary title.. Soviet Russia was a socialist republic [though really that was after stalin, and even then probably only in name, though seeing a republic is less intersted in how the person was selected and more interested that the person in power is a representative of the people at the time they first get into power], this is not to suggest that soviet russia was democratic [notice the synonym here is free, but republic would not at all be appropriate], only to point out that the "republic" is not the most important aspect, or more that its no more important than the other aspects that go with it.
A representative democracy is simply when representatives are elected to represent voters/citizens in whatever political assembly has been created by the the head of state/constitution.
To put it in a more graphical form, the condom is the republic, theoretically if the head of state is representative choice and not heredity it will act as a lubricating coating to the power of the state, which is held together by the constitution, without which the soft white gooey goodness that is representative democracy is too maleable and would easily be squashed and ruined by rough treatment.1 -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Guy you replied to here. It's still not a true democracy, regardless of how you word it.
>This absolutist rubbish [republic not a democracy, capitalism good socialism bad] is a particularly sad failing of your culture.
Nice "holier than thou" attitude you got there. -
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: The true Scotsman counterargument wouldn't work here at all. Don't play that card if there's no table to put it on.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: Oh I see so by "true" you meant "pure", you weren't trying to suggest that your system of presidential democracy/representative democracy is not actually democracy but something else, even though it's refered to as democracy, has much in common with other systems around the world described as democratic, and is described in all the war PR as "Democracy"? I must have misunderstood when it seemed you were trying to suggest that your implementation of democracy was not democracy because it was not exactly the same as all other implementations of democracy around the world.
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: For all intensive purposes, and so you don't stroke your e-peen over semantics/subjectivity arguments, a "true/pure" democracy is one where the DIRECT majority votes and makes a decision. The U.S., and really no standing government on the planet, does not have a pure democracy. Period.
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
@Anonymous: For all intents and purposes, and somewhat to stroke my peen, Democracy is a rather broad idea/system that is implmented in many different political systems from monarchies to republics, both capitalist and socialist. To stress that the only real "democracy" is direct democracy, and that anything else is not democracy because you say, is one of the most fascile arguments ive ever read in relation to American politics.
No one has said, to my knowlage, that America practices direct democracy, to say that America though is not a democracy because it does not practice direct democracy is simply purile, and would be akin to suggesting that any triangle that is not an equilateral triangle is not a triangle, but is merely a three sided two dimensial shape.
2 -
Anonymous





