TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US
Pages (5): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew a bit more explanation would be in place for us who don't know every fucking detail of the US consitution. and how can you in the same time have the right to say whatever you want, even hate things, as you cannot say this... just doesn't make any logic to me.

Well I don't have time to go into the whole consitutional details here, but I can tell you that the US government class I took taught by a UC Berekeley proffesor is what gives me my insight, maybe you should study in the US for a year and find out for yourself how wrong you are.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology perfectly? even i think it works alright, but if something written in the 18th century is still 'perfect' today there wouldnt be the need or possibility for amendments. i really dont think anything, much less one specific type of government can be 'perfect' for every single human residing under that system|

Actually, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and my university Poly-sci classes are the reasons I have this point of view. The very fact that it is a "living" document that can be ammended is written into it and further supports my point.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well I don't have time to go into the whole consitutional details here, but I can tell you that the US government class I took taught by a UC Berekeley proffesor is what gives me my insight, maybe you should study in the US for a year and find out for yourself how wrong you are.

please just simply explain how it can perfectly cover up what DrUg_Tit0 said...

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Actually, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying and my university Poly-sci classes are the reasons I have this point of view. The very fact that it is a "living" document that can be ammended is written into it and further supports my point.

well perhaps you should say that as *evidence* rather than calling non-Americans stupid and wrong.

that being said i still dont think its 'perfect' the world over. you have to subscribe to its ideals to some degree.

that is why it is obviously failing in Iraq and would likely never work in most of Asia - "authoritarian" countries according to the US, "organized" countries according to Asians (Malays, for example)

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well I don't have time to go into the whole consitutional details here, but I can tell you that the US government class I took taught by a UC Berekeley proffesor is what gives me my insight, maybe you should study in the US for a year and find out for yourself how wrong you are.

Jesus, if you go to school at Berkeley I fear for our country's future. Honestly, how the hell did someone who can't spell "professor" or "Berkeley" get into such a prestigious institution?!?!?!?!

Sheesh...

Oh and BTW, the US system, while the best in terms of protecting individual rights is perhaps the worst western democratic system in terms of political diversity (Canada's might be on par with ours). I highly suggest you study parliamentary systems and their ability to include and support more than just two parties who are basically saying the same stuff.

Awe heck whatever, if you're going to judge me by my spelling mistakes then fuck it. I have nothing to prove here.

I've taken college courses in US History, world history, and Poly-sci. I'm not an english major and never will be, but I do know quite a lot about the American system of government and that it's not as shitty as everyone makes it out to be.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Awe heck whatever, if you're going to judge me by my spelling mistakes then fuck it. I have nothing to prove here. I've taken college courses in US History, world history, and Poly-sci. I'm not an english major and never will be, but I do know quite a lot about the American system of government and that it's not as shitty as everyone makes it out to be.

Its not that the system of governance is shitty but the people who operate above its framework to fulfill their political agendas that suit the already well off are the shitty ones. It can undoubtedly be argued that the likes of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and G.W. Bush himself cannot be trusted to give the everyday working American a fair shake over the interests of the big businesses that dominate American policy today. Case and point, remember this quote "the outsourcing of American jobs is good for the U.S. economy." How terrific that made me feel as an American that our current administration can tell Americans that any movement of jobs to a foreign nation is good for America, thus we should just get over it. Haliburton Corp is just another example, Boeing and its numerous links to the Defence Industry and politicians oh so intertwined to ensure its contract deals.

I could go on and on about our terrific system of governance but sadly the people entrusted with the power to govern care more about ensuring that the campaign contributors are well taken care of than working Joe Stiff. Does that mean that there is some grand conspiracy to usurp the average citizen, No, but we know where priorities often lie with decisions related to government and corporate interests. After all what's good for corporate America must be good for all Americans, like the outsourcing of jobs

Re: Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by arctic What the hell? This is getting highly aggravating. For once, just once, back up what you say. I've never seen you actually articulate your position properly, or back up what you say with a logical argument and/or sources and examples. You just announce that something is the case, usually with a "trust me" added on, then apparently think that you've made a good point. FFS, if it isn't, cite examples.

It doesn't take much to know that America is more free than Europe.
But, if you want "sources"
The declaration of independence,the constitution.... That's what makes America more free

Also, the fact that the Eastern European countries just released from Communism. All support is much more than the old European Nations.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Socialized medicine IS NOT freedom. Actually it is exactly the opposite. You actually lack freedom in this area. I have access to the best healthcare in the world (thanks to Stanford medical center) because I *choose* to obtain a job that provides the best medical insurance. THAT IS FREEDOM.

Apparently you haven't been to other countries. I think that medical system in US is pure abomination. Yes it has the best technology, but have you been at doctor's office lately. It takes you five hours before you get out of there for having just a regular check-up. Please, and I implore you, please, don't tell what is the lack of freedom is? Especially in this area. You are not the one to decide, cause you haven't lived in the country with socialized medicine.

I lived in Ukraine before I came to US. You know what. American medical system sucks plain ass. period. If I come to office in Ukraine I would be served as soon as possible with the same, if not better quality.

Man, you really should travel more, instead of sitting on this large island. And yeah, listen to other world news sources as well, instead of CNN, MSNBC, or *insert your biased news source here*.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Case and point, remember this quote "the outsourcing of American jobs is good for the U.S. economy." How terrific that made me feel as an American that our current administration can tell Americans that any movement of jobs to a foreign nation is good for America, thus we should just get over it.

Yeah except Bush is correct on this one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 It doesn't take much to know that America is more free than Europe.

Firstly Europe isn't governed by one set of rules. Even in the UK there are differnt rules for Scotland and England and Wales. So a huge genralisation like that that doesn't make much sence.

Secondly I seriously doubt you know very much about the rule of law in ANY country other than your own so never mind the whole of Europe.

Thirdly whats your definition of freedom?

Simply dogmaticly and nationalisticly spouting "our democracys best" is a heap of crap. Be you even think the US was the first to be democratic.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: For FuzzyGreen and others prefering the "freedom" of the US

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Be you even think the US was the first to be democratic.

Umm...in terms of modern Western democracy, yeah! About the time we were writing our Constitution, Europe was just getting around to dumping the governing power of their monarchies.

Eh No


Edit: "Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy."

Source
The US Govenment Website

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

quote:

Originally posted by 3xx3r7 Apparently you haven't been to other countries. I think that medical system in US is pure abomination. Yes it has the best technology, but have you been at doctor's office lately. It takes you five hours before you get out of there for having just a regular check-up. Please, and I implore you, please, don't tell what is the lack of freedom is? Especially in this area. You are not the one to decide, cause you haven't lived in the country with socialized medicine. I lived in Ukraine before I came to US. You know what. American medical system sucks plain ass. period. If I come to office in Ukraine I would be served as soon as possible with the same, if not better quality. Man, you really should travel more, instead of sitting on this large island. And yeah, listen to other world news sources as well, instead of CNN, MSNBC, or *insert your biased news source here*.

No, plain and simple America has the best doctors, the best medicine, and the best technology. Why? Because it's form of goverment creates the opurtunity for the most powerfull companies, technologies, and industries that can ever be created. I am fine with my low taxes(compared to european taxes) and top of the line health care for my family, thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen No, plain and simple America has the best doctors, the best medicine, and the best technology

That'll be why Cuba has less AIDS then?

Best if you can afford it. What if you can't get a job?

"If you are poor, or Cuban, there is no fee, but there is space for a relative in a dormitory or nearby room."

<<< Note poor OR Cuban

So a Cuban goes to the US gets ill result no treatment, American in Cuba falls ill and can't pay, gets it for free.


"Americans could perhaps consider quietly, what Cuba, starved, cheated and lied about, but not on the ropes, can do for its own and other peoples, yet the USA fights its working and poor peoples with all the might of its failed, rigid capitalist system?"

Link



Quote from a Cuban but if you gonna base you grounds for freedom on medical care you could say Cuba is more free than the US. Which it isn't. And again your nationalistic "ours is best" genralisations show a thought process based upon tribalism alone. Which to me seems a not very high level to be operating at.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish That'll be why Cuba has less AIDS then?

Actually it's because Cuba has no repsect for human rights so they took everyone who had HIV and forced sent them off to AIDS sanitariums... It's not because of quality healthcare.

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 Actually it's because Cuba has no repsect for human rights so they took everyone who had HIV and forced sent them off to AIDS sanitariums... It's not because of quality healthcare.

Firstly wheres your evidence?

Secondly

"Since 1995, the Cuba AIDS Project has been a non-political, USA based humanitarian organization operating in support of HIV/ AIDS patients and their families in Cuba. The Cuba AIDS Project is an advocate of humane, dignified treatment of all HIV/AIDS patients and their families worldwide but focuses on Cuban HIV/AIDS patients as its mission.The Cuba AIDS Project applauds the management and treatment the Cuban healthcare system provides to HIV/AIDS patients in Cuba."

Source

Note the words "US Based" and "The Cuba AIDS Project applauds the management and treatment the Cuban healthcare system provides to HIV/AIDS patients in Cuba" hardly forcing them into anywhere is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Eh No Edit: "Ancient Athens, the world's first democracy, managed to practice direct democracy with an assembly that may have numbered as many as 5,000 to 6,000 persons--perhaps the maximum number that can physically gather in one place and practice direct democracy."

As I said before, I'll say it again - with respect to today's modern Western democracy, the US was first. It was the first (and only) place in the world where a clean slate was given to educated peoples, upon which they built an entirely new system of government based upon ideas that had previously existed only in theory. Locke and Rousseau were instrumental in many of these theories, and once the American system was locked in place, many of the new "radical" ideas of self-governance worked their way into Europe.

What you quoted was about Athens' direct democracy, which was nothing like the representative democracies that we have today, either in spirit, governance, or law.

Well firstly if your "Western"(which you've yet to tell me in which way is differnt) democracy is so FUNDAMENTALLY differnt to the ancient greeks then how come it's on the US goverment website on the page called defining democracy. Yes there is the differnce between direct and representative. But 1. the idea is the same and 2. is due to the size of the nation involved and 3. is it any better(given that it's the citizens not the representatives who vote)?

Secondly is a county where most of the people vote for Gore and Bush gets in even Democratic?

Also would you view the nation which up until relativly recently didn't let people vote based on the colour of thier skin democratic at that point?

Edit:
FYI

Play particular attention to section "3 - Representative Government:-
In England, Edward the First, in 1295, "

and

"The roots of democracy and freedom for all "western" democracies are planted in the rich history of Britain beginning with the Magna Carta. "

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Secondly is a county where most of the people vote for Gore and Bush gets in even Democratic?

Well, it's a democratic republic.

But anyway, the electorial college system is a great system where American citizens can indirectly vote for the president which keeps the power of minority rule, A basic principal in American Government.

Yes but thier votes don't directly vote for the president.

Edit:
Also is a system where this happens not a bit ludacrus?

"The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged."

So depending on which state you vote in your vote will effectivly be delt with differntly. And the "voter"(college I mean) might not have a choice. <<< Now that is dumb. Sorry by voter I mean elector.

Which is essential since the US government was founded on the idea of minority rule and keeping the power out of the majority to keep radical change in check.

quote:

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system? Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as "archaic" and "ambiguous" and in 1987, for instance, its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it. On the other hand, surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. But public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
US Goverment Website Again
(Sorry should of properly quoted it eariler)

"Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981." <<<< Now if thats not undemocratic what is? "We know better than the people what they want" "Yep they want to change the way their political system operates........ we gonna change it?.......nah"

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Yes but thier votes don't directly vote for the president. Edit: Also is a system where this happens not a bit ludacrus? "The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged." So depending on which state you vote in your vote will effectivly be delt with differntly. And the "voter"(college I mean) might not have a choice. <<< Now that is dumb. Sorry by voter I mean elector.

Well I'm not completely sure of your argument, bud doesn't it make sense that electors of the electoral college are not completely "free" to act as they choose since they are BOUND by the public majroity vote to vote as the majority intended?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.