undemocratic Americans?

[Logic 7]

I have to ask...what does keeping that in mind have to do with anything? I can write you an IOU for a million dollars. It's the best IOU ever written in history...means shyte though. Cause I ain't ever gonna pay ya. So, if the constitution isn't implemented or practiced what good is the writting?

This is what i said earlier in the post

I admit you are right toro, however since usa are under patriot act, wiretapping and so on, civil liberties in usa is a joke.

And yes you are right, it is only in theory, however this applies the same for canada, i don't think canada has better freedom than usa, same for england.

 

[thomaska]

Remember that the USA, especially in the South, is the country in which blacks weren't allowed to sit at bars or at the counter in diners until the 1960s. They weren't allowed to sit in certain areas of buses. They weren't allowed to be treated in certain hospitals and were still used as slaves until the 1860s. The few blacks that were in Britain, the country that gave the world modern democracy, in the 1950s had all the rights as everyone else.

America being the "Land of the Free" is nothing but a myth.

Funny...coming from a country who built privateer and other warships for the Confederacy during our Civil War.. Look up the CSS Alabama...

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

 

[Zzarchov]

So they took sides? Whats your beef?

You're problems aint their problems. Much like how the USA backs up a theocratic dictatorship at this very moment. Its just the nature of international politics.

 

[gopher]

0/10 Accuracy - could do better.

Woops, yeah, all right -- the British fleet was greeted with flowers and candy just like Bush's forces in Iraq.

;-)

 

[Niflmir]

Remember that the USA, especially in the South, is the country in which blacks weren't allowed to sit at bars or at the counter in diners until the 1960s. They weren't allowed to sit in certain areas of buses. They weren't allowed to be treated in certain hospitals and were still used as slaves until the 1860s. The few blacks that were in Britain, the country that gave the world modern democracy, in the 1950s had all the rights as everyone else.

America being the "Land of the Free" is nothing but a myth.

Hey hey, 2006 and there are still areas in the USA where a black person isn't allowed to sit.

going back to the OP, I wonder if Canadian statistics would be much different. Do the 'less educated' in Canada have a much broader understanding of the rights of free speech than the 'lower class' in the US do?

Is it really an american issue? Or a human one?

I am pretty sure it is a human one. People love to demonize the USA because nobody likes imperialism - unless they benefit from it directly. Our government isn't much better. Luckily the NDP managed to pull through back in the 60's and give us a universal health care system.

 

[karrie]

I am pretty sure it is a human one. People love to demonize the USA because nobody likes imperialism - unless they benefit from it directly. Our government isn't much better. Luckily the NDP managed to pull through back in the 60's and give us a universal health care system.

Thanks Niflmir, I was starting to think I was talking to myself! lol.

Simply because the study was conducted on americans, doesn't mean they are any worse than anyone else. Frankly, I'd like to see how Canadians score on the same test. Take a few people down a peg or two perhaps.

 

[Blackleaf]

... or Argentinians who are native to the Malvinas ...

Hardly any Argentinians are native to the Falkland Islands. 70% of Falkland Islanders are of British descent (mainly Scottish and Ulster Scots) which makes the British claim to the islands definitely more legitimate than Argentina's or anyone else's. Most of the rest consist mainly of people of French, Scandinavian and Portuguese descent.

 

[Blackleaf]

Funny...coming from a country who built privateer and other warships for the Confederacy during our Civil War.. Look up the CSS Alabama...

You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?

What has this got to do with anything?

 

[Blackleaf]

I wonder if the Irish would have such a benign view of England.

Who cares what the Paddies think? They were the ones who supported the Germans in both World Wars, including being the only country other than Japan to open a book of condolences after the death of Hitler, so we have equally less than benign views against them. Americans should also feel a bit miffed against the Paddies considering that in World War II (what the Irish, for some reason, call "The Emergency") they refused to allow American warships to dock in Irish ports which, if they did, would have allowed them better access to fight German U-Boats. This was one of the reasons that Churchill considerd invading Ireland.

Remember that in 1807 Britain was the first country in the world to ban slavery. America didn't do so until the 1860s. The so-called "Land of the Free" treated Blacks like animals until probably the early 1970s, whereas in Britain they've always had all the freedoms granted to everyone else.

 

[#juan]

Canada's slaves were "officially" totally free when the British commanded it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Canada

Don't forget that Canada was a British colony at that time, and her people were of course subject to British law.

 

[Blackleaf]

Funny to read that from you blackleaf, especially when you know the south were loyalist to their teeth to your crappy monarchy, no wonder why.

Whatever peoples can say about USA(including myself), they still have the best consititution ever written in history, keep that in mind.

No, they don't. Britain's "unwritten" Constitution, composed of such great documents as the Magna Carta, is the greatest ever written. In fact, much of America's civil rights are based on the Magna Carta and the British Bill of Rights of 1689. Why else do you think that whenever the Magna Carta is taken to America that hundreds of Americans queue up to see it?

The British know how to write Constitutions considering that we have written more of them for many nations than any other country in the world.

In fact, the first 8 Amendments of the US Constitution are based on the English Bill of Rights, as are the Constitutions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other British colonies (thank yourselves lucky you have this British-style Constitution and not a tyrannical Continental European one) -


[SIZE=+3]BILL of RIGHTS, 1689[/SIZE]

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

• That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
• That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
• That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
• That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
• That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
• That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
• That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
• That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
• That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
• That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
• That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
• That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
• And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.


For the full 1689 Bill of Rights, go here - http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/rights.html

 

[Phil B]

Woops, yeah, all right -- the British fleet was greeted with flowers and candy just like Bush's forces in Iraq.

;-)

The only inhabitants on the Islands when the first Europeans got there were the penguins who are still there and to the best of my knowledge can't speak.

I've just had rather a bizarre thought about penguins singing and dancing like in Happy feet greeting Humans with Flowers and candy:lol:

 

[Blackleaf]

Woops, yeah, all right -- the British fleet was greeted with flowers and candy just like Bush's forces in Iraq.

;-)

The first person to spot the Falkland Islands was an Englishman, centuries before Argentina even existed. The first people to build settlements on the islands were the French, followed by the British, again before there was any such country as Argentina. So Britain has never gone into Argentinian territory and stole the islands of them. The people who ventured onto others' territory to steal them were the Argentinians in 1982 when they illegally invaded the Falkland Islands, a part of Britain, and therefore seen as invading Britain itself.

They even acquired the name "Falkland Islands" in 1690 - almost 120 years before Argentina came into existence - during a British expedition led by John Strong, who named the islands after his patron, Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland.

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, called Port Saint Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.

Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III of the United Kingdom.

All this occurred before Argentina came into existence in 1816.

We can blame the AMERICANS for the dispute between Britain (which settled the islands before Argentina ever did) and Argentina. AN American working for the Argies raised a flag on the islands. When the Argies then built a settlement on them Americans ships destroyed the settlement.

When Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816, it laid claim to the islands according to the uti possidetis juris principle, since they had been under the administrative jurisdiction of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On 6 November 1820, Colonel David Jewett, an American sailor at the service of Buenos Aires, and captain of the frigate Heroina, raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (which later became Argentina) at Port Louis. He warned the British and American seal hunting ships present that they did not have authorization to hunt seals in the area, and then returned to Buenos Aires; the sealers ignored his warning.

Occupation began in 1826 with the foundation of a settlement and a penal colony. The settlement was destroyed by United States warships in 1831 after the Argentinian governor of the islands Luis Vernet seized U.S. seal hunting ships during a dispute over fishing rights. They left behind escaped prisoners and pirates. In November 1832, Argentina sent another governor who was killed in a mutiny.

In January 1833, British forces returned and informed the Argentine commander that they intended to assert British Sovereignty. The existing settlers were allowed to remain, with an Irish member of Vernet's settlement, William Dickson, appointed as the Islands Governer. Vernet's Deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year and was informed that the British had no objections to the continuation of Vernet's business ventures provided there was no inteference with British control.

The Royal Navy built a base at Stanley, and the islands became a strategic point for navigation around Cape Horn. The World War I naval battle, the Battle of Falkland Islands took place in December 1914, with a British victory over the Germans. During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and serviced ships which took part in the Battle of the River Plate.

Sovereignty over the islands became an issue again in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Argentina, which had never renounced its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514[13], regarding the de-colonization of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue.

Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the two thousand inhabitants of mainly British descent preferred that the islands remain British territory.

wikipedia.org

 

[EagleSmack]

Funny to read that from you blackleaf, especially when you know the south were loyalist to their teeth to your crappy monarchy, no wonder why.

Whatever peoples can say about USA(including myself), they still have the best consititution ever written in history, keep that in mind.

For the first time ever I am very much in Logic's corner on this one. Not only was the south very much loyal to the monarchy, during the US Civil War Britain supported the Southern war effort in every way they could w/o completely siding with them. At that time Britain would do anything they could to unhinge the US Federal Govt.

There is a book by a Col. Arthur Freemantle of the Coldstream Guards written during the Gettysburg Campaign. He was sent directly by the monarchy to report on the South's progress in the war and it is rife with anti-north and pro-southern commentary including how the new Southern Govt. will be welcomed back to the Crown once they defeat the North.

 

[EagleSmack]

We can blame the AMERICANS for the dispute between Britain (which settled the islands before Argentina ever did) and Argentina. AN American working for the Argies raised a flag on the islands. When the Argies then built a settlement on them Americans ships destroyed the settlement.<-- Blackleaf

This was one of the most CLASSIC "Blame AMERICA!" stories I ever heard. I read about this once before in a book about the Falklands War. What Blackleaf fails to mention that the sacking of the port was done during the War of 1812. When nations are at war they tend to destroy the other nations stuff when possible. The author of the book then concluded by the sacking of this settlement in 1812 it created a vacuum and the AMERICANS were to blame for the Falkland Islands war in 1982! :lol:

 

[John Hunt]

Hmm it's hard to mount an effective response to the overwhelming criticism to my post.

Concerning methodology, I'd don't know how and where the studies were conducted-I was wondering that myself.

But really, can't we all agree that true "enlightenment" can only be attained through higher levels of education? I mean, clearly, those masses are really horribly backward and their thinking. The elite levels of government, business and academe are the only place where noble democratic ideals can flourish.

Right?

 

[John Hunt]

going back to the OP, I wonder if Canadian statistics would be much different. Do the 'less educated' in Canada have a much broader understanding of the rights of free speech than the 'lower class' in the US do?

Is it really an american issue? Or a human one?

Good point karrie.

I guess the broader question is whether the mass public (those who are not community leaders, members of the press, clergy, teachers, lawyers and judges, union officials) properly grasp any of the tenets of "democratic ideals" or if such wisdom is only found in the "elite."

 

[Niflmir]

Good point karrie.

I guess the broader question is whether the mass public (those who are not community leaders, members of the press, clergy, teachers, lawyers and judges, union officials) properly grasp any of the tenets of "democratic ideals" or if such wisdom is only found in the "elite."

I am pretty sure that very few Canadians know exactly what our hate laws entail, of the Canadians that even know we have them in the first place. I am sure even fewer understand the shivs that are put in place to exclude religious institutions from the brunt of these laws.

Democracy is hard. Understanding what your government does and is doing is a necessary ingredient in every citizen for a successful democracy. At the same time, understanding what your government does and is doing is a full time job. No working class citizens has the time to fulfill their democratic duties. On that stand alone it is simply wrong to criticise anyone for lack of knowledge of the workings of their government. Who here in this forum could describe how the Standing orders of the House of Commons differs from the classical parliamentary rules of Robert's rules of order?

 

[MikeyDB]

Hyer edjukashun is defenately the key. Its so wunderful that Americu has purserveerd in keepingits peeple so good infomed and edjukated. It's a nacheral extenshun of Americus eforts at edjukashun that all anywon needs today to get a edjukashun is a TV. Americu has set the mark on informing its citizuns about all them bad people in other places that want to destroi Americu. If ther wern't wunderfull televishun programs on Americun TV the peeple of Americu woodn't know about them wepns of mas destrucshun an why Americaun peeple are paying billions every month to prtekt Amuricas freedoms. It wuz a close call when them bad Komunists deklared war on Americu back a few yeers ago in Sowth Viatnam an Americu protekted the wurld.

Amuriku is the gratess nashun ever to eggist.

 

[Curiosity]

going back to the OP, I wonder if Canadian statistics would be much different. Do the 'less educated' in Canada have a much broader understanding of the rights of free speech than the 'lower class' in the US do?

Is it really an american issue? Or a human one?

Karrie not sure what you were getting at in this... but it just caught my eye this morning ...

The 'lower classes' or 'less educated' in the U.S. would be the newly arrived -especially the migrants from Mexico and other S.A. countries.

These people have many of the rights of a citizen - to medical care, education, work, law enforcement protection, preschool children health and nutrition programs, pre-birth care, activism, parades (boy do they have parades).....their needs have stalemated most government programs for the citizenry - and rarely can an American born and educated receive adequate attention from all phases of State or Federal government without having to get in line with the huge backlog of immigration necessaries (for their survival). Waiting in line for government equates with what I read about medical care in Canada.

I would venture a guess these newly arrived have taken over the rights department, have found creative ways to get them for non- legals, and turn the issue of 'rights' on its ear.

Why? Because eligible people have become too lazy to honor the fact they have rights...some abuse them...some never use them.... some could care less and take whatever they believe is theirs and some labor under the assumption 'when they need help they will get it...' which is not always true these days.

The lower classes in the U.S. are the ones who are using the concept to their advantage.
Even those who have no legal 'rights' from the government or the people who pay taxes, but they are well endowed in the concept of 'human rights'.