The Consitution of the US

[squarejohn]

I for one certainly don't know anything about any days off. Days off for everyone else means more dogs for me to take care of.

I always found it interesting how people drool after the words of slavers and religious oppressors. "Land of opportunity" means nothing more than "the land people can invade, shoot everyone already living there, build on the backs of slaves, and live like kings, telling everyone else how they should live their lives."

We're not better than anyone else; we just boast about ourselves and our many accomplishments. We claim patriotism as our strength, though all it seems to do is divide. It divides us from one-another in that one person can claim abortion is patriotic, denouncing anyone else who has a different point-of-view as being unpatriotic. What's to stop the pro-life people from making the same claim? Not too much.
It also divides us from the rest of the world. We get our asses kicked on the Olympic diving platform and our currency means shit to the world market right now. But who cares? We better than you.
The struggle to believe we're involved with something great. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
The Bill of Rights were a nice ten rules to lay down, but look what we've done with them. Freedom of speech means whatever the person in the big chair at the time happens to think about it. Children are indoctrinated by being forced to stand and "cross their hearts" at a flag they don't understand and recite a poem the person over the intercom doesn't know how to recite properly. People refer to this country as "America" as though the word doesn't refer to two entire continents filled with countries. We claim "manifest destiny" so we don't have to feel guilty about pressing our territory as far as we want. We claim "white man's burden" to justify oppressing others with our system of living and our various religions and faiths.
And that's how we live: Clinging to an ideal written two hundred, twenty-three years or so ago without ever asking ourselves if we're worthy of the legacy, or whether we just shout "unpatriotic!" at those that have a different view of us. To each his own, I suppose. Isn't that the "persuit of happiness" that starts up the Declairation?

Well, at least you're not bitter.

 

[driphoney]

I have to say, this is a very unique topic for the EF.

 

[sr71plt]

A couple things: Firstly, socialism is an economic model, not a political model.

Webster's defines socialism as both economic and political theory, so I think it's splitting hairs too finely to push a discussion off the rails by not letting it be discussed in a political context. I think we all can envision the political aspect to it.

 

[fieryjen]

Don't know what drives your obvious bitterness but as one among the brotherhood who has hung his ass out more than once so you can have the right to express those feelings I'm offended. It's not a perfect sytem by any means but it is without question the best one available. If you hate it so much then why stay?

It's about freedom. Freedom think, act and succeed as one sees fit.

Socialism is a failed experiment, Communism was a failed experiment, but many forms of democracy flourish. Perhaps you could find one to your liking. Or better yet you could work to make this one better, because that's part of it all. Continuing to make it better for everyone.

You have a nice day tomorrow celebrating the freedom to do so. If for some reason you can't, just remember that you have the freedom to change your circumstance.

Do you even understand that you fought for exactly this right to express any opinion the person expressing it wishes to express? Criticism of any political system is vital and important, and I, for one, am glad that people make use of it. Without criticism any political system would completely stagnate.

 

[sr71plt]

Also, Democracy is a political system. Socialism, ultimately, is an economic one. It would be better to compare socialism and the free market.

OK, I'll bite. What's the political system that uses socialism? I'll note once again that Webster's defines socialism as a political theory equally to an economic theory. What's the use of disrupting discussion to deny it's a political system if you don't use the term you think covers the poltical system for socialism?

 

[statsultan]

OK, I'll bite. What's the political system that uses socialism? I'll note once again that Webster's defines socialism as a political theory equally to an economic theory. What's the use of disrupting discussion to deny it's a political system if you don't use the term you think covers the poltical system for socialism?

People describe Cuba as socialist, but that's their economic model. Their political model is a military dictatorship.

China likewise is socialist, but politically its a one-party state. Technically it functions as a democracy, with elections all the way down to the local level, except that candidates are intensely screened by the leadership of the only allowable political party.

Conservative talk show hosts like to describe European countries, including the UK, as socialist. But politically its hard to describe the UK as anything other than a parliamentary democracy.

 

[squarejohn]

OK, I'll bite. What's the political system that uses socialism? I'll note once again that Webster's defines socialism as a political theory equally to an economic theory. What's the use of disrupting discussion to deny it's a political system if you don't use the term you think covers the poltical system for socialism?

There is a vast difference between Socialism and Capitalism. For example:
You have two cows under Socialism. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to someone else.

You have two cows under Capitalism. You sell one cow and buy a bull.

Get the picture?

 

[sr71plt]

There is a vast difference between Socialism and Capitalism. For example:
You have two cows under Socialism. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to someone else.

You have two cows under Capitalism. You sell one cow and buy a bull.

Get the picture?

No. Because I understand what it means politically to have a socialist system (and the dictionary does too), so I have no trouble using "socialism" as a political system term--and see no reason why discussions should be interrupted to try to disrupt something I can clearly see in political terms.

(And, yes, I have a masters degree in government.)

 

[StrictMasterD]

Enjoy the 4th Remember OUR Constituion, without it this Site would not be here, FREDOM of Speach does NOT COVER EVERYTHING, can anyone name the Exceptions to Freedom of Speech NOT Protected by the Constitution?? Yes there are some

 

[StrictMasterD]

And enjoy the 4th with a 5th

 

[fieryjen]

Enjoy the 4th Remember OUR Constituion, without it this Site would not be here, FREDOM of Speach does NOT COVER EVERYTHING, can anyone name the Exceptions to Freedom of Speech NOT Protected by the Constitution?? Yes there are some

Hate speech, the infamous yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater... wait, are we getting graded on this?

 

[figazza]

Clear and present danger.

 

[sr71plt]

You are free to slander--but you could well have to pay a price for doing so.

 

[sxyoldguy]

Do you even understand that you fought for exactly this right to express any opinion the person expressing it wishes to express? Criticism of any political system is vital and important, and I, for one, am glad that people make use of it. Without criticism any political system would completely stagnate.

Of course I understand. Ergo the comment about freedom. I just feel that criticism for the sake of criticism only tears down.

You can chose to part of the solution or part of the problem. I was merely sugesting that he become part of the solution.

 

[squarejohn]

No. Because I understand what it means politically to have a socialist system (and the dictionary does too), so I have no trouble using "socialism" as a political system term--and see no reason why discussions should be interrupted to try to disrupt something I can clearly see in political terms.

(And, yes, I have a masters degree in government.)

It's a pity you don't have a degree in expressing yourself clearly.

 

[sr71plt]

You can chose to part of the solution or part of the problem. I was merely sugesting that he become part of the solution.

But wouldn't that mean actually doing something and being willing to take personal responsibility?

 

[squarejohn]

Enjoy the 4th Remember OUR Constituion, without it this Site would not be here, FREDOM of Speach does NOT COVER EVERYTHING, can anyone name the Exceptions to Freedom of Speech NOT Protected by the Constitution?? Yes there are some

Advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

 

[sr71plt]

It's a pity you don't have a degree in expressing yourself clearly.

Oh, how have I not expressed myself clearly on this thread? About what? Or perhaps you just couldn't resist the irrelevant back biting(?)

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[sr71plt]

Happily, the framers of the Constitution knew how to spell.

But think of how much ink they could have saved by just having the one "e" and one less "t."

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[CopperSkink]

No more Pledge? That's good to hear (four days off-topic, I know).

What always excites my debating gland is how people bandy the term "Democracy" when talking about freedom and such. Unless my education was incorrect or I managed to misconstrue things between now and sixth grade, democracy is a system of government in which every subordinate of that government has an equal vote as the next person as to what decisions are made or what have you.
Example - Molly wants burritos for dinner. Ken, being a sloppy pig, would prefer a filet of beef with grilled heart of artachoke. Mom and Dad want to warm up microwave dinners because they're too tired from working all day. All four of them come to a consensus that the best thing to do is to let everyone fend for themselves so no one ends up getting upset. Mom and Dad get their frozen pound of flesh, Molly warms up some of the beef-and-been mash Mom makes once a week, and Ken is left hungry because he's only twelve and doesn't know how to prepare filet beef without burning it.
Then there's representitive democracy, known as "republic." Example as follows:
Molly wants her burritos, Ken wants his filet, Dad wants a fish. All of them tell Mom what they want. Mom, being Mom decides to make frozen pot pie again because she could care less what her ungrateful family could want for dinner.
Ergo everyone in the household is entitled to a vote, but in the end the one put in charge of the kitchen ends up making the final decision.
I'm not very proud of this country. At least the history books report as there having been slavery and mass slaughter of the natives, or immigrants being imported to work the low-wage jobs without access to economic support in their income bracket. When I talk with my friends from other countries, none of them complain about how their freedoms are stamped upon. None of them get arrested because they spoke their mind in public. The only real thing I've noticed that differentiates people in this country from other countries on the fundamental level is that we say we're different. Better, even.
But we're talking about government, I know. This government is driven by cash flow. Those with money support those with decision-making ability. The government, the economy; it all works the same way, whichever country you go to. People aren't so evolved that once they find themselves in a position of power that they'll do anything but use it to keep themselves firmly seated where they are and keep everyone else down.
Best thing about 4th was the fireworks, but those got banned. Now all we have left is a flag. What have we done with it?

 

[sr71plt]

Hmm. Name another country you are proud of that you know beyond surface impressions.

I spent time in Norway, a country I think does very well (but then they aren't expected to be everything for everyone, including a whipping post), in two different periods. In the first period, at cocktail parties they had their noses in the air over how the United States was/wasn't dealing with race relations. The second time I was there, they had just gone through a flux of black and brown third-world immigrants arriving and interacting with Norwegian society--and from their cocktail party talk, I could have placed them in a whites-only Baptist church in Birmingham, Alabama, in the mid 50s.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

Granted this is an outsider's view of US Democracy

... What always excites my debating gland is how people bandy the term "Democracy" when talking about freedom and such. Unless my education was incorrect or I managed to misconstrue things between now and sixth grade, democracy is a system of government in which every subordinate of that government has an equal vote as the next person as to what decisions are made or what have you. ...

Your education as to the dictionary meaning of the word democracy was correct.

... Example - Molly wants burritos for dinner. Ken, being a sloppy pig, would prefer a filet of beef with grilled heart of artachoke. Mom and Dad want to warm up microwave dinners because they're too tired from working all day. All four of them come to a consensus that the best thing to do is to let everyone fend for themselves so no one ends up getting upset. ...

No. What happens in a democracy is that the three suggestions are put on a ballot paper and each voter votes secretly for the one they want. Then the votes are counted and microwave gets 2 votes and is therefore chosen for everybody.

... Then there's representitive democracy, known as "republic." ...

It does not have to be a republic. Quite a few countries, (UK,Canada, Australia, to name but three) manage to be democratic without being republics, having "constitutional monarchy" instead.

... Then there's representitive democracy, known as "republic." Example as follows:
Molly wants her burritos, Ken wants his filet, Dad wants a fish. All of them tell Mom what they want. Mom, being Mom decides to make frozen pot pie again because she could care less what her ungrateful family could want for dinner.
Ergo everyone in the household is entitled to a vote, but in the end the one put in charge of the kitchen ends up making the final decision. ...

Because there are (usually) periodic elections, compromise is necessary for the representative government to stay in power. Compromise, of course is best defined as "everybody gets what nobody wants". See the current UK government's policies, and Italian Government policies ad nauseam.

... I'm not very proud of this country. At least the history books report as there having been slavery and mass slaughter of the natives, or immigrants being imported to work the low-wage jobs without access to economic support in their income bracket. When I talk with my friends from other countries, none of them complain about how their freedoms are stamped upon. None of them get arrested because they spoke their [minds]...

The last true democracies were the ancient Greek city states. Actually you do pretty well in the USA. There are frequent referenda on various propositions. The last referendum in the UK on anything was in 1975! Since then we have had "Parliament knows best" government. If we had a referendum on, say, the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder in the UK nobody has the least doubt that it would be passed by a comfortable majority, yet the UK Parliament is dead set against it, to the extent that they would not allow extradition of a known terrorist murderer to the USA because (s)he might be executed.

... This government is driven by cash flow. Those with money support those with decision-making ability. The government, the economy; it all works the same way, whichever country you go to. ...

True, but most people's lives are driven by cash flow. Have you never heard the term "wage slaves" to describe most Western people's lives?

PS What has this to do with editing?

 

[CopperSkink]

I would (making excuses to justify pursuing the topic) assume it to be important for editors to have a certain level of knowledge of government and economics, as sometimes we play the part of sixth-grade teachers to our writers.

Pride is an interesting subject. The first I knew of the word was from the Bible, which says pride is to be abhorred, not favored. Granted later on in life I learned that my mother only went to church and put me in Bible school because keeping up her appearances was important to her.
Still, now that I have a more objective view on religions, faiths, and agnostisism, I take a step back to look at pride in general. What I see is a weapon people use to put each other down. Pride only serves to separate us. National pride and the ensuing patriotism end up fueling fires of war. In an extremist sense. If it's something simple like being proud of a sculpture or (more to the point) a story, that's fine. But pride can take a beating when you check the ratings on said story to find that piece of work you're so proud of got stuck at five thousand views with five votes averaging between two and three. Humility, in this sense, tends to be a better helpmeet than pride.

But it's not like there's some solution. We cry when someone dies, then we lobby for healthcare. People live longer, and the planet becomes overpopulated. We thin our numbers out with wars, and war is protested. Human nature has always been what it is, no matter what country we live in or what we believe in. Our nature is to believe we are in the best of times in the best of places because we want to believe our individual selves are special. The US just came along during a time of revolution both philosophically and technologically. Our advantage was that we started off more modern without (forgive me Englishmen) feeling it necessary to wear wigs in court and other such traditions, but the rest of the world has caught up in the last three hundred years.