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 3xx3r7 Also, FuzzyGreen you seem to respond only to the points that are convenient for you. You either don't want to admit strong points or don't have anything to say about them from the way I see it.

Well I am at work right now and don't have time to research and answer everything, so I pick the easy ones. Maybe if someone else could come on here and help me out it wouldn't be so much work.

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

quote:

Originally posted by arctic What the? (part two!) I'm sorry to break it to you, but there are numerous things going on today in the US that are in direct violation of the constitution, specifically the establishment clause and the first amendment (I believe the two are different - correct me if I'm wrong).

Which ones?
What church is the official church of the United states? If you are talking about the first amendment.

quote:

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that because the constitution says something, it actually happens. Sadly, that isn't the case. You need to look at freedom in practice rather than in theory.

Tell me,would you rather live under a king that tells you what religion to follow? Cause that's what America broke away from in 1776.

You obviously know nothing about America. We have many more freedoms here than Europe,and that one is obvious.

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

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Tell me,would you rather live under a king that tells you what religion to follow? Cause that's what America broke away from in 1776. You obviously know nothing about America. We have many more freedoms here than Europe,and that one is obvious.

Erm, hate to break it to you, but since you seem to base your assumptions on the situation that existed in Europe during early baroque period, I must let you know that the current situation in Europe is as different from the one back in 1776 as is that in the US. European countries are mostly constitutional republics, with a few exceptions like the UK, but even there the royal family has absolutely no relevance and weight aside from being a tourist attraction and a constant source of gossips. You might want to learn a bit more about what happened in world history besides the local american 1776-1865 interval that's being taught in schools. You'd then know, for example, that there was an earlier failed attempt in the UK to overthrow the monarchy and create a republic led by Oliver Cromwell. So you weren't the first "modern" people that tried, only the first that succeeded. With a great help from the french, may I add.

As a matter of fact, I'd even say that the government system in most european countries is more modern and democratic than that in the US, because there are no electorial votes, as the government leaders and presidents are chosen directly. It can't happen that a person who wins less than 50% of the votes becomes a president like it happened in the US.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Well I am at work right now and don't have time to research and answer everything, so I pick the easy ones. Maybe if someone else could come on here and help me out it wouldn't be so much work.

I think you are all alone in this one, buddy. That should be no surprise.

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

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Which ones? What church is the official church of the United states? If you are talking about the first amendment. Tell me,would you rather live under a king that tells you what religion to follow? Cause that's what America broke away from in 1776. You obviously know nothing about America. We have many more freedoms here than Europe,and that one is obvious.

... are you talking?

It's the 21th century dude, I'm pretty sure every decade all the countries in the world have a different administration and purpose for their needs.

About freedoms, I really only believe there's two real kinds of freedoms people need to care about - Moral Freedoms and Practical Freedoms. Moral being freedoms that are acceptable to all, practical meaning our basic human rights. All countries do the same to try to balance these two types between a person's integrity and their cultural values. One of the main reasons that the US has a slight more restricted policy on these freedoms is because we have more people to tend to then most western countries, with more diverse ideals between people. People in america are more of a melting pot then a salad bowl, like europe. That causes alot of abstruct views on all our policies due to inter-racial prejustice, racism, 'crackers' or 'uncle toms', etc. Then add religious conflict, regional dissension, gender issues and a whole lot of bull-shit excuses(mostly scams and shit that creates loopholes in our system).. That's the american way. Trying to blend worlds all over in one country... Then caucasians suppressing the pending fairness of america's politics, social ideals, etc... It's just the way it is.

Honestly, the states just try to please the majority while trying to keep ourselves content with what we have. If we we're any more of a freer nation, we'd have way more national chaos then we already have. It's already shitty that 9/11 fucked our international ties and high economic rates, but as long as the united states has the majority of it's country living in practically middle of nowhere or people living in poverty in a nation of economic power, we'll continue to have those 'irratic individuals', who are angry at the world and everything in it, disrupting social freedom.

Thats the difference between europe and america, in my opinion.

The reason they have a bit more freedom, is because america's goals are power, economy and pride. If we took a big step back and 20-30 years ago stopped meddling with other country's problems, then we'd be a more freer nation today, a more content nation, a richer nation and the world would be different all together.

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

quote:

Originally posted by SpecialEd If we took a big step back and 20-30 years ago stopped meddling with other country's problems, then we'd be a more freer nation today, a more content nation, a richer nation and the world would be different all together.

What, like staying out of the cold war? That constitutes the majority of foreign policy decisions for the past 20-30 years.

quote:

Originally posted by mps242 I can go on and on for days.... Yes Aids patients get free treatment (assuming there are drugs available) but they are basically forced into AIDS sanatariums.

"It has also evolved its policy. Patients at Los Cocos are now able to leave if they choose."

From your BBC source. So they are not forced now. Though they were which you could say leads to them having an advantage. But the real point I was trying to make in the post was that the best doctors the best technolgy do not make the best medical system, which I'll stand by.

Edit: And also here in the UK or anywhere else for that matter if you want private health care or private health care insurance you can get it. You are free to choose the National Heath Service or private. So the issue of you can't choose the doctor you see or whatever is null and void. Esspecially since in the NHS you can do that anyway because you choose which doctor you wish to register with and which treatments you do or do not recive.

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

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen I have no clue what you are talking about, but no "local millita" is allowed anything more then a normal "joe public". The right to bear arms and protect yourself is a freedom granted by the constitution.

quote:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Thats the line the gun lobbists use to say they are allowed to bear arms. Here is why, from a gun advocate.

quote:

Anti-gun propaganda falsely insists that the Second Amendment only guarantees the "right" of States to have a National Guard. An examination of the language used in the eighteenth century by the Framers of the Constitution clearly shows our Founding Fathers intended to protect a birthright that properly belongs to every individual citizen of the United States.

Now is it just me or does "Milita" not normally mean something like the national guard, rather than everyone? If it ment everyone it would say citizen. As it does say for rights and so on, why say milita when you mean citizen? The point I was trying to make is the constution isn't practiced as accuratly as it could be. Thats what I ment before.

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

quote:

Originally posted by occrider What, like staying out of the cold war? That constitutes the majority of foreign policy decisions for the past 20-30 years.

not necessarally the cold war. That was evitable.

Iraqi-Iran war is a good example and most of vietnam. but it's not the whole warfare ideal that has the world hating us. It's that in all matters that concern people, the US takes the lead on the offensive. Sooner or later we'll be nuked, someone will, just because there's so much discontent for americans and western civilization. I fear that day so much, just because It seems that's what the terrorists and radical governments are planning.

The cold war, korean war and desert storm were really the only two wars that had great signifient value. I personally thought the threat of communism wasn't that big of a deal until their nuclear weapons programs were a threat.

Communism is a great concept for 3rd world countries, you can't honestly establish a democracy in an enviroment that's not resourcefully efficient unless there's a will/force behind the matter.

really I don't have a very strong opinion about it all, but I'd wish there was some way the US could of had a more neutral stance the past few years.

To believe whether you are free or not, one must first understand what it means to be free.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok I'll take the US any day, where I have my constituationally guaranteed freedom of speech, my jury trial, my low income tax rates, and my right to own enough firearms to take over Luxembourg on my lunch break. The only reasons people don't seem to understand the freedoms that we have is because the world press looks at America, and nitpicks the hell out of every little thing. If any European nation was under the same scrutiny as America, you'd find a lot more crap to worry about.

I can't really see whats good about jury-trials.
actually I think it sucks. I'd rather have a trained professional judging my actions, deciding if I have broken the law, than a couple of potential retards judging my moral values.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Actually I can speak German, French, Italian and Spanish, along with a minor bit of Dutch(too gluttoral). I am believe it or not working on Norwegian, and then Danish and Swedish, since those two are mutually intellegible to Norwegian I decided to learn that first. I might soon be speaking to you or trancaholic in your respective forums. Strange an American speaking German, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish and the Scandanavian languages, can you say Enigma Chalk it up to my love of human cultures for learning languages.

whoa! I'm impressed. But you should realize that the nordic languages is considered to be quite difficult to learn. But if you really want to, then you'll probably work it out. and like I said, I am impressed.

"On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for president or vice president in a different manner than that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

The Electoral College obviously does not always vote the way it is supposed to vote. So you can't use the argument that they always vote in the manner which the people have chosen.

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