Please tell me where free speech began. Actually free speech, where you could believe anything you wanted as long as you did not directly plot or threaten to attack a person or government.
✠✙ 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
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.
Please reword this into something that makes sense.
✠✙ 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
I'd like to ask that you please respect all religions' beliefs, even if you don't personally agree with them.
Just Exercising my freedom of Speech
You are on an internet forum Freedom of speech is regulated by the government, a mod asking you to be polite is enforcing rules, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech
I'd like to ask that you please respect all religions' beliefs, even if you don't personally agree with them.
Just Exercising my freedom of Speech
The government may provide you the freedom to be toxic and disrespectful in public, but this is a privately-run website and we can hold you accountable and take disciplinary action if you break our rules. Free speech only applies to the government's forced limitation on speech -- on this website, we can make you voluntarily restrict that freedom of speech in exchange for the privilege to post here.
✠✙ 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
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.
I can tell you're not going to listen to what I say, can I prove something is evil? who can prove wrong? I'm not really interested in pursuing this, I knew you were all your typical mainstream media and more or less like Republicans, Both parties are horrible. Plus I just don't have the time to deal with all these posts, must say I'm shocked with you, you lost a relative to America but blame it on one man but if Not Truman someone else would be responsible. You instead praise America, I like living here but i'm not Patriotic, The Bible tell us not to be, I view countries as all Evil, Maybe America WAS better than the Soviets, a lesser of 2 evils. Now I know you'll say I'm giving in and laugh at me but so goes everything, heroes of the moment, Truth is I'm not interested in discussing this anymore and I really don't care about Other's views of me.
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.
I'm pretty sure that while technically the Monarch has to give assent to all laws, because, technically, pretty much all the power is vested in the sovereign, that's all it is, technically.
Practically, the power is vested in Parliament with the monarch "giving their consent", even though Parliament really has the power.
An important point is that the UK has no single, codified consitution like the US. Rather their consitution is uncodified, made up of the sum of various laws and even just traditions and conventions that aren't even actually laws but people act like they are because of long usage. This is because, after all, their was no single moment when the UK goverment began, but it gradually developed from a Monarch where the Sovereign had the power into what really is a consitutional Monarchy.
Even the office of the Prime Minister is legally, largely just a Convention, even though practically that isn't really the case.
Basically, in the UK, the way the goverment runs isn't necesarily the way any law might say but is a combination of laws, traditions, and conventions, that combine to produce a goverment headed by the Parliament, headed by the Prime Minister, with the Monarch "giving their consent," though they dont' have real power, even if this system isn't actually fully stipulated by any law and even if technically the Monarch is still in charge even though really that's not the case.
Essentially, it's wierd. :tounge: From an American's point of view, at least. I see why the Founding Father's wanted a written Consitution. :tounge:
If you've been to a Airport your constitutional rights are gone without cause.
The Constitution does not say that you can't be scanned by an X-ray.
To be fair, the Constition really to give powers to the federal goverment, not take them away. However, security is reasonable, as I have said in my other posts.
Here Ye here Ye, the Discussion is now closed on Freedom, Government etc. Talk about History not this right now, call me whatever you like but I'm tired of it and now the Mods are on me, plus to many posts for me anyway. if you persist with this I will get the Mods involved.
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.
The government may provide you the freedom to be toxic and disrespectful in public, but this is a privately-run website and we can hold you accountable and take disciplinary action if you break our rules. Free speech only applies to the government's forced limitation on speech -- on this website, we can make you voluntarily restrict that freedom of speech in exchange for the privilege to post here.
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?
[Removed my waste of an hour of research for space]
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.
I can tell you're not going to listen to what I say, can I prove something is evil? who can prove wrong? I'm not really interested in pursuing this, I knew you were all your typical mainstream media and more or less like Republicans, Both parties are horrible. Plus I just don't have the time to deal with all these posts, must say I'm shocked with you, you lost a relative to America but blame it on one man but if Not Truman someone else would be responsible. You instead praise America, I like living here but i'm not Patriotic, The Bible tell us not to be, I view countries as all Evil, Maybe America WAS better than the Soviets, a lesser of 2 evils. Now I know you'll say I'm giving in and laugh at me but so goes everything, heroes of the moment, Truth is I'm not interested in discussing this anymore and I really don't care about Other's views of me.
I never told you to prove it was evil. You're totally ignoring how unrestricted your free speech is compared to the rest of the world. It's high time we acknowledged that neither of us will probably agree with anything the other says. You believe the world is invariably evil, and I believe that there is some good in the world because God did say that he is everywhere on this Earth and always with us.
Yeah, I lost relatives to America. Japanese and Confederate. I'll squarely lay the blame for one death on Truman because he personally ordered that bomb be dropped on that location, but that's the only person I'd hold responsible. Everyone else did what they were told. I'll praise America for what they did right and I'll sorely criticize America for what they did wrong, because you can't throw a blanket statement on things.
✠✙ 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
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.
True, but I know people who would prefer a full aristocracy. Some ancient Greek guy called Plato agrees with them.
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.
Well... Plato says aristocracies are ruled by a Philosopher King. Someone with supreme wisdom and intelligence, someone who was brought up to rule. The Philosopher King is so rich with knowledge s/he cannot be tempted to abuse their power in a pursuit for material goods, like the dictators. And in a way, that makes a little sense. The British Royals are not filthy rich like most individual politicians. Plato says they don't want to be either. Some people stand with the Royal Family over the Government, that has to mean something.
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.
Well... Plato says aristocracies are ruled by a Philosopher King. Someone with supreme wisdom and intelligence, someone who was brought up to rule. The Philosopher King is so rich with knowledge s/he cannot be tempted to abuse their power in a pursuit for material goods, like the dictators. And in a way, that makes a little sense. The British Royals are not filthy rich like most individual politicians. Plato says they don't want to be either. Some people stand with the Royal Family over the Government, that has to mean something.
Ideally, yes, that would be excellent. And when their are good monarchs, it is a very good system. Unfortunately, good monarchs seem to be the minority. So many have cared nothing for morality or for the people and have merely sought to satisfy their own selfish desires, leading to tyranny.
I'm pretty sure that's what Plato was saying, ideally. If he actually thought all monarchies were like that, he was a moron.
Well... Plato says aristocracies are ruled by a Philosopher King. Someone with supreme wisdom and intelligence, someone who was brought up to rule. The Philosopher King is so rich with knowledge s/he cannot be tempted to abuse their power in a pursuit for material goods, like the dictators. And in a way, that makes a little sense. The British Royals are not filthy rich like most individual politicians. Plato says they don't want to be either. Some people stand with the Royal Family over the Government, that has to mean something.
Ideally, yes, that would be excellent. And when their are good monarchs, it is a very good system. Unfortunately, good monarchs seem to be the minority. So many have cared nothing for morality or for the people and have merely sought to satisfy their own selfish desires, leading to tyranny.
I'm pretty sure that's what Plato was saying, ideally. If he actually thought all monarchies were like that, he was a moron.
I guess you could say King Edward was a more recent example of aristocracies going wrong, the family ousted him. I don't believe we've had a bad royal since. I would trust Prince Charles, William and Henry to rule when and if the time came. Can't say the same for many politicians. I think that was what Plato was going for.
When I talk about monarchies, I talk about my own... I understand other countries are different, but I think the UK and the Commonwealth are in safe hands under the royal reign. Others, maybe not so. Besides, the monarch doesn't hold huge powers like they previously did in the UK. I think it's all balanced rather well.
Freedom of speech is regulated by the government, a mod asking you to be polite is enforcing rules, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech 
