I agree that our current president isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but still, people voted for him, and if the people of America think he's good, then so be it. It's better than the people not having a choice in who becomes the leader.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
The British monarch is just a symbol of the state, though.
Before social security, the elderly poor lived under the care of their family and/or the church. It worked pretty well. Republicans clearly don't want "only rich people to live," so maybe there's reasoning in there that you haven't seen.
It might've worked in most cases but not all, I know the Republicans want Smaller Government but that's not always true, they want a large Military. They want no Restrictions which would mean we would have some huge tycoons who destroy small business and we would be far worse, Thankfully they haven't been able to get rid of the Great Society. But the Democrats aren't any better, they have a lot of Garbage also, both are flawed.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
I semi-agree (I'm British). There are some advantages. I quite like the current way Britain is run. While the Monarch does not currently rule the country, it's very good that she does have power. Laws have to be approved by her, and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the govenrment. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval.
I'm not sure what I'd feel about the Monarch taking full power again, but it's certainly better to have one with limited power than no power.
Oh, I guess she does have some power, sorry. But it is still a constitutional monarchy.
So what, I don't care if they persecute, I mean I would want to get out of there fast but what can they do to me? Purgatory is something made up by Catholics which is totally false.
If you don't care about what other countries can do to you because your soul is saved, why are you even having this debate on airport infringements on personal space? It's clear that in the end everything that happens to you on this Earth is inconsequential and therefore no amount of suppression should be a problem for you.
I think it's just inevitable that any online chat about history or government is going to end up an argument about politics.
It might've worked in most cases but not all, I know the Republicans want Smaller Government but that's not always true, they want a large Military. They want no Restrictions which would mean we would have some huge tycoons who destroy small business and we would be far worse, Thankfully they haven't been able to get rid of the Great Society. But the Democrats aren't any better, they have a lot of Garbage also, both are flawed.
Small government refers to less intrusion on the affairs of the people. The military isn't a government program that tells the populace how to live their lives through regulation.
Republicans don't want "no restrictions." That doesn't even make sense from an economic standpoint. Please, please do some research into each side before you make claims about them. This is not the first time you've stated something that is simply, objectively false. I don't care whether you support the left, the right, or neither, so long as you actually know what you're talking about.
You've changed your tune, I see. As soon as I start supporting Republicans, America is a "Great Society" that they thankfully haven't yet destroyed. Yet, when I was comparing America to the Soviet Union, America was "aggressive" and "just as evil." Which is it?
While we're on this subject, however, let's think about what you've said. You've managed to state objective untruths and use these objective, uninformed opinions to influence your political ideology, and you've independently come to the conclusion that you support neither of the largest parties. Congratulations. You've done what would have been (or still is) impossible in
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bahrain
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Byelorussia (Belarus)
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
People's Republic of the Congo
Croatia
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Germany
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Ivory Coast
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan (which is still ripe with ethnic conflict)
Laos
Latvia
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova (today, high civil unrest)
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
North Korea
North Vietnam
North Yemen
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Persia
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea (yeah, they were authoritarian in the past)
South Sudan
South Yemen
South Vietnam
Soviet Union (some successor states have been included to emphasize the size of the USSR; successor states that were not one-party are in bold)
Spain
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan (today, largely a violent anarchy)
Tanzania
Tanganyika
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Arab Republic
Upper Volta
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zanzibar
Today there are 196 countries. Some of these historically overlap and some are divisions are the same country, but the total tends to be around 175-200. 139 of them did or do not even allow you to voice an opposite opinion from the government's, and that doesn't even count countries where "free speech" is allowed but only one party can legally be in power. All of these countries existed in the 20th/21st century and thus I have not included monarchies or governments from previous centuries.
I implore you not to squander your freedom of speech by complaining that you have none. Use it to bring these countries to light and enact change upon them so that their people may have a voice in their governments.
It might've worked in most cases but not all, I know the Republicans want Smaller Government but that's not always true, they want a large Military. They want no Restrictions which would mean we would have some huge tycoons who destroy small business and we would be far worse, Thankfully they haven't been able to get rid of the Great Society. But the Democrats aren't any better, they have a lot of Garbage also, both are flawed.
Small government refers to less intrusion on the affairs of the people. The military isn't a government program that tells the populace how to live their lives through regulation.
Republicans don't want "no restrictions." That doesn't even make sense from an economic standpoint. Please, please do some research into each side before you make claims about them. This is not the first time you've stated something that is simply, objectively false. I don't care whether you support the left, the right, or neither, so long as you actually know what you're talking about.
You've changed your tune, I see. As soon as I start supporting Republicans, America is a "Great Society" that they thankfully haven't yet destroyed. Yet, when I was comparing America to the Soviet Union, America was "aggressive" and "just as evil." Which is it?
While we're on this subject, however, let's think about what you've said. You've managed to state objective untruths and use these objective, uninformed opinions to influence your political ideology, and you've independently come to the conclusion that you support neither of the largest parties. Congratulations. You've done what would have been (or still is) impossible in
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bahrain
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Byelorussia (Belarus)
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
People's Republic of the Congo
Croatia
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Germany
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Ivory Coast
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan (which is still ripe with ethnic conflict)
Laos
Latvia
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova (today, high civil unrest)
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
North Korea
North Vietnam
North Yemen
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Persia
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea (yeah, they were authoritarian in the past)
South Sudan
South Yemen
South Vietnam
Soviet Union (some successor states have been included to emphasize the size of the USSR; successor states that were not one-party are in bold)
Spain
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan (today, largely a violent anarchy)
Tanzania
Tanganyika
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Arab Republic
Upper Volta
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zanzibar
Today there are 196 countries. Some of these historically overlap and some are divisions are the same country, but the total tends to be around 175-200. 139 of them did or do not even allow you to voice an opposite opinion from the government's, and that doesn't even count countries where "free speech" is allowed but only one party can legally be in power. All of these countries existed in the 20th/21st century and thus I have not included monarchies or governments from previous centuries.
I implore you not to squander your freedom of speech by complaining that you have none. Use it to bring these countries to light and enact change upon them so that their people may have a voice in their governments.
Out of curiosity, did you make that whole list yourself?
Small government refers to less intrusion on the affairs of the people. The military isn't a government program that tells the populace how to live their lives through regulation.
Republicans don't want "no restrictions." That doesn't even make sense from an economic standpoint. Please, please do some research into each side before you make claims about them. This is not the first time you've stated something that is simply, objectively false. I don't care whether you support the left, the right, or neither, so long as you actually know what you're talking about.
You've changed your tune, I see. As soon as I start supporting Republicans, America is a "Great Society" that they thankfully haven't yet destroyed. Yet, when I was comparing America to the Soviet Union, America was "aggressive" and "just as evil." Which is it?
While we're on this subject, however, let's think about what you've said. You've managed to state objective untruths and use these objective, uninformed opinions to influence your political ideology, and you've independently come to the conclusion that you support neither of the largest parties. Congratulations. You've done what would have been (or still is) impossible in
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Armenia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bahrain
Belgium
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Byelorussia (Belarus)
Cambodia
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
People's Republic of the Congo
Croatia
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Germany
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Italy
Ivory Coast
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan (which is still ripe with ethnic conflict)
Laos
Latvia
Liberia
Libya
Lithuania
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mexico
Moldova (today, high civil unrest)
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nicaragua
Niger
North Korea
North Vietnam
North Yemen
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Persia
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
San Marino
São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea (yeah, they were authoritarian in the past)
South Sudan
South Yemen
South Vietnam
Soviet Union (some successor states have been included to emphasize the size of the USSR; successor states that were not one-party are in bold)
Spain
Sudan
Syria
Tajikistan (today, largely a violent anarchy)
Tanzania
Tanganyika
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Arab Republic
Upper Volta
Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zaire
Zambia
Zanzibar
Today there are 196 countries. Some of these historically overlap and some are divisions are the same country, but the total tends to be around 175-200. 139 of them did or do not even allow you to voice an opposite opinion from the government's, and that doesn't even count countries where "free speech" is allowed but only one party can legally be in power. All of these countries existed in the 20th/21st century and thus I have not included monarchies or governments from previous centuries.
I implore you not to squander your freedom of speech by complaining that you have none. Use it to bring these countries to light and enact change upon them so that their people may have a voice in their governments.
Out of curiosity, did you make that whole list yourself?
I did, aye. The list was comprised of several lists of single-party states of various ideologies, authoritarian states to whom the U.S. provided assistance under the Truman Doctrine, my own knowledge of World War II, and some digging into the post-Soviet history of satellite states.
✠✙ What once was old doth fade away/But Former Glory stays the same ✙✠ •••Unity•••Duty•••DESTINY••• ***EST. 2006*** • 9/11/01 • BCC: 2010-2014 • EX-TER-MIN-ATE! –Dalek
Out of curiosity, did you make that whole list yourself?
I did, aye. The list was comprised of several lists of single-party states of various ideologies, authoritarian states to whom the U.S. provided assistance under the Truman Doctrine, my own knowledge of World War II, and some digging into the post-Soviet history of satellite states.
A few Brits could argue with that. Sometimes an aristocracy government seems like a nice idea. I know of people who would actually prefer the British Monarchy to rule than the current mob.
I semi-agree (I'm British). There are some advantages. I quite like the current way Britain is run. While the Monarch does not currently rule the country, it's very good that she does have power. Laws have to be approved by her, and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the govenrment. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval.
I'm not sure what I'd feel about the Monarch taking full power again, but it's certainly better to have one with limited power than no power.
"Laws have to be approved by her..."
It works basically the same way in a Congressional-Presidential system as in the US. Congress (Or Parliament) makes a bill and the President (Or Monarch) either signs it or doesn't.
"...and the Armed Forces are loyal to the Queen, not the government. The good thing about this is that if a government similar to that of Germany during WWII somehow came into power, the Monarch could stop them. They wouldn't be able to pass any laws or mobilize the army without Royal Approval."
OK, and how is this better compared to other systems? The US military pledges loyalty to the Constitution, not the government, and it to would defend against a dictatorial government. And it wouldn't have to wait for orders, either. Even if the President commands the military, they have the absolute right to rebel if what he or she does dramatically infringes on the rights of the people of the US.
Which brings me to my next point. What happens if it's the monarch that's the dictator? If any soldiers try to do something, they'll be punished for it.
So what, I don't care if they persecute, I mean I would want to get out of there fast but what can they do to me? Purgatory is something made up by Catholics which is totally false.
I'd like to ask that you please respect all religions' beliefs, even if you don't personally agree with them.
Well of course not, there was no such thing but we have the freedom of privacy.
1973- U.S. vs Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 “noting that airport screenings are considered to be administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme, where the essential administrative purpose is to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft.” “[an administrative search is allowed if] no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose, and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly.”
1986 - U.S. vs Pulido-Baquerizo, 800 F.2d 899, 901 “To judge reasonableness, it is necessary to balance the right to be free of intrusion with society’s interest in safe air travel.”
So what, I don't care if they persecute, I mean I would want to get out of there fast but what can they do to me? Purgatory is something made up by Catholics which is totally false.
If you don't care about what other countries can do to you because your soul is saved, why are you even having this debate on airport infringements on personal space? It's clear that in the end everything that happens to you on this Earth is inconsequential and therefore no amount of suppression should be a problem for you.
Oh just because they can't destroy means their good, no their Evil and I'm pointing that out, its important to know.
Well of course not, there was no such thing but we have the freedom of privacy.
As was touched upon in a post before me, and was extensively covered in Mill's Utilitarianism, everyone should have the right to do what they want with the exception of those actions which infringe on the rights of others to do what they want. This is why you must submit to screenings at airports. Such screenings are voluntary, by the way. If you don't want to submit to screenings, just don't fly. There are plenty of other systems that work like this: metal detectors are present in all federal buildings in the United States as a means to detect bombs. If you don't want to submit to the scan, you just don't walk through the metal detector. If the government never told you that the screenings were taking place and you passed through unaware, I could see your point, but it's made very clear to you that the screenings will happen and if you have a problem with them there's one easy solution.
true, I haven't flown in years but its not always so simple to just not do it, as for Phones, I don't own a Smartphone, hope never too, not just for security and privacy, but its coming obsolete and soon you might have to won one to get by,
Wow. That is A LOT of countries.
