USA Politics

bearfan said:
For example, I find it incredibly odd (and a bit disgusting) that some liberal democracies ban political parties and/or fine people for their views or statements.
Click to expand...
Example(s)? Are you talking about antisemitism? Denying the holocaust and such? It depends on the country, I guess.

I guess that is also a continental thing. Some events are so historically import that it has effect on society.
 
Forostar said:
Example(s)? Are you talking about antisemitism? Denying the holocaust and such? It depends on the country, I guess.

I guess that is also a continental thing. Some events are so historically import that it has effect on society.
Click to expand...


Mainly yes .. though add in separatist parties in Spain and Turkey.
 
I should add that I certainly respect that different people can have different opinions and one thing I like about this forum is that issues like this can be discussed in a respectful manner.
 
You know what disgusts me? Freedom of speech without limits.
The bigotry of people who make money with a big mouth. Glenn Beck etc.

And in the USA they have the right to protest at funerals of gay soldiers. "He got what he deserved because he was homosexual."

Barbaric really. It really attributes to prejudice one may have of the land of the free.

EDIT:
@Bearfan, I admire your coolness. You don't get offended/irritated so easily. That helps when discussing the USA. :)
 
Forostar said:
You know what disgusts me? Freedom of speech without limits.
The bigotry of people who make money with a big mouth. Glenn Beck etc.

And in the USA they have the right to protest at funerals of gay soldiers. "He got what he deserved because he was homosexual."

Barbaric really. It really attributes to prejudice one may have of the land of the free.

EDIT:
@Bearfan, I admire your coolness. You don't get offended/irritated so easily. That helps when discussing the USA. :)
Click to expand...


The funeral protests and the like disgust me as well, but I think it is beneficial to put these people out in the open and let everyone see who they really are and it diminishes their cause. All forcing people underground does is make them attractive for "rebels" to join. I would rather have these people in the open and on a theoretical level understand that if the speech of some people can be limited, the speech of all people can be limited. I would prefer the government not have that power.
 
Forostar said:
You know what disgusts me? Freedom of speech without limits.
Click to expand...

I used to think that way. Then I found that there are people who have those sentiments regarding opinions that I have. And ever since, I've considered Freedom of Speech the one and only thing that must not be limited in a civilised country. People have all the right to say crap, and you have all the right to call bullshit on them.
 
Misleading seems like an understandable side effect of people that protest people's funerals. Its tasteless, but some people might actually think they have a point because they will go to such extreme lengths to voice them. But hate seeding? Amongst the people who's funeral they are protesting I guess...
 
If anything the funeral protests have brought about much larger counter protests and pretty much universal condemnation of Westboro Baptist
 
LooseCannon said:
Yes, which are reasonable limitations, except perhaps for obscenity, but yes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, obscenity should be mostly excluded from this ... there are some contexts where it should be limited. But with the possible exception of "obscenity" none of these other restrictions have anything to do with a free exchange of ideas.
 
Natalie said:
This is the problem I have with the U.S. attitude to the Constitution. No doubt it is a highly valuable, insightful, powerful, important historical document that helped shape one of the most powerful nations in history. But just like other important documents that have shaped our world, i.e. the Quran or the Bible, it's a bit out-dated. And people are reluctant to fix/change the bits that are flat out irrelevant or just wrong. Which in a sense makes them obsolete. And that is unfortunate for those that adhere to those documents. The Constitution is not infallible. I get the sense people forget this.
Click to expand...

Other than this debate regarding the Second Amendment, what is outdated about it? I'm curious. Also, no one ever said the Constitution is infallible. That's why there have been 27 amendments to it, the most recent in 1992, including an amendment that repeals another amendment. What it is, is the supreme law of the land, more fundamental than any executive order or act of Congress. And the rule of law is very, very important to a free society. It's what makes us different than North Korea. That Americans take it very seriously is a good thing. As is the fact that it is HARD to change the Constitution. Some countries have Constitutions that change all the time. Even our own individual States do, too -- see the mess with Proposition 8 in California. That's the kind of thing that happens when Constitutions are too easily changed. You get bad law. I have heard a number of people say "the Constitution should change to reflect the times" or "the Constitution should be interpreted to reflect current thinking." Bullshit. The Constitution is not simply a "valuable" and "important historical document." It is the basis for our modern society -- and yes, Brucie, for almost all other modern [EDIT: democratic] societies, as well. The Romans may have invented representative democracy, but the U.S. Constitution is the model for most modern liberal democracies.

For what it is worth, I have no problem with many aspects of the recent guns bill. For example, if you have background checks at retail stores, I am totally on board with extending those background checks to gun shows and online sales. The Senate fucked that one up. But to be clear, I have sensed that the debate on this thread has devolved into an argument that the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it permits gun ownership in the first place. If that's so, then the Constitution can be amended. But do you think it should be? And, if so, do you have any basis for that view other than to reduce the homicide rate? More to the point, have any of you even researched where the right to bear arms actually comes from, and why? (Hint: the Second Amendment does NOT create that right -- it presumes the right already exists, and prevents the government from taking it away -- and it wasn't due to a "different continent, different culture" attitude.)
 
Cornfed Hick said:
More to the point, have any of you even researched where the right to bear arms actually comes from, and why? (Hint: the Second Amendment does NOT create that right -- it presumes the right already exists, and prevents the government from taking it away -- and it wasn't due to a "different continent, different culture" attitude.)
Click to expand...

I have, but I don't think you're questioning me. And it should be noted that most new democracies don't base their constitutions on the US one anymore, but more likely the French or German ones - which are themselves derivative...anyway. Not really important. The US Constitution is the granddaddy of modern liberal democracy, and we all owe a lot to the concept of it.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
[...] I have sensed that the debate on this thread has devolved into an argument that the U.S. Constitution is flawed because it permits gun ownership in the first place. If that's so, then the Constitution can be amended. But do you think it should be? And, if so, do you have any basis for that view other than to reduce the homicide rate?
Click to expand...

Why don't you support ammending it then? And, yes, I think it should be ammended. To the last question: not really. Is this not a good enough reason?
Cornfed Hick said:
More to the point, have any of you even researched where the right to bear arms actually comes from, and why? (Hint: the Second Amendment does NOT create that right -- it presumes the right already exists, and prevents the government from taking it away -- and it wasn't due to a "different continent, different culture" attitude.)
Click to expand...

Yes. Philosophically it's a pretty old idea. However, in respect to this discussion, the US adopted it from English common law. Most modern Western democracies canned the idea last century.
 
Cornfed Hick said:
More to the point, have any of you even researched where the right to bear arms actually comes from, and why? (Hint: the Second Amendment does NOT create that right -- it presumes the right already exists, and prevents the government from taking it away -- and it wasn't due to a "different continent, different culture" attitude.)
Click to expand...

Thank you. This is the missing question in this excellent discussion for me.
Why is this part of the US constitution and does the scenario it was created to address still carry weight today?
I'd really appreciate it if you or Bearfan could answer that for me.

That's what I am missing here, and why I have trouble seeing "it is in the constitution" as anything but synonymous with "because the Bible says so."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top