American Exceptionalism

[Ziggurat]

Yes because most Liberal democracies expect you take responsibility for what you say - not just shoot your mouth off and then hide behind the shadows of the founding fathers robes

You can justify the lack of freedom of speech in other countries however you want. My point is that the difference exists, a point you want to denigrate but cannot deny.

 

[crimresearch]

Yes the Magna Carta limited the power of the Crown that is exactly analogous to limiting the power of the President.

Once again all the US did was copy the was copy the English system
Crown - President
Upper house - Senate
House of Commons - House of Representatives

In fact the President had more power than his equivalent head of state in the English system. Likewise the limitations on what things government can do simply copied what already existed in England.

BTW in the modern the nobility are simply the equivalent of today's "rich" the "0.1%" if you will. I doubt we have to look hard to find you opposing limitations on the power of this group wields...

So you think the President of the US is divinely ordained as ruler and as defender of the faith?

Best you get to worshipping then.

 

[MG1962]

You can justify the lack of freedom of speech in other countries however you want. My point is that the difference exists, a point you want to denigrate but cannot deny.

I will try to hold onto that distinction next time I see someone like Fred Phelps call Heath Ledger's parents bastards while they morn the death of their son

 

[MG1962]

So you think the President of the US is divinely ordained as ruler and as defender of the faith?

Best you get to worshipping then.

I find your lack of knowledge of the British political system since the English civil war disturbing

 

[crimresearch]

I find your lack of knowledge of the British political system since the English civil war disturbing

Since it is entirely (again) a figment of your imagination, perhaps you should do something about being so disturbed.

 

[MG1962]

Since it is entirely (again) a figment of your imagination, perhaps you should do something about being so disturbed.

Na, its much more fun to watch you reload and shoot yourself in the other foot

 

[crimresearch]

Na, its much more fun to watch you reload and shoot yourself in the other foot

You have (yet again) no clue what my point was, but are ready to load your jingomatic and fire randomly away. because somewhere, a minority dares to criticize your Empire.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You have (yet again) no clue what my point was, but are ready to load your jingomatic and fire randomly away. because somewhere, a minority dares to criticize your Empire.

1. He's Australian, not British. I'm assuming that was what you were insinuating anyway.

2. What was your point then? The English Civil War effectively removed the idea of the Divine Right of Kings in this country. Even after the resurrection of the monarchy, the power of the kind was severely limited.

 

[Ziggurat]

I will try to hold onto that distinction next time I see someone like Fred Phelps call Heath Ledger's parents bastards while they morn the death of their son

Also hold onto that distinction when people like Oriana Fallaci or Geert Wilders are put on trial for heresy. Which do you honestly think matters more? Never mind, you've already provided the answer.

 

[crimresearch]

Nothing new under the sun. As enticing an idea as innate moral superiority is, humankind is still the same animal it always was, and evolution looks to be taking its sweet time at creating a more enlightened adaptation.

As the posts above, and the thousands like them across the history of the forum prove, there is nothing at all uniquely American about exceptionalism.

All around the world, people have had the opportunity to build their fortunes on the misfortune of others, and rarely have they passed it up.

Roman Empire, Han, Ottoman, Persian, Spanish, British, French, American, et al.

All built on the unshakeable conviction that being smart enough to choose what country you were born in, makes you an entitled and superior being to the 'slavs', the 'wogs', the 'keffir', the 'darkies'....

A condition that is proclaimed with evangelical fervor everytime one these threads comes up.

Instead of having honest discussions about the root causes of human social problems, and discourse on solutions, it rarely gets past page 2 before the nationalistic pooh-flinging starts, followed quickly by the Stormfront factoid parrots, and not much beyond that before the JREF moderators start editing out 'uncivil' (read 'uppity) facts from the history of the race.

 

[MG1962]

Also hold onto that distinction when people like Oriana Fallaci or Geert Wilders are put on trial for heresy. Which do you honestly think matters more? Never mind, you've already provided the answer.

How about that it seems an off shoot of free speech seems to mean you cant tell the difference between heresy and hate crimes

 

[crimresearch]

1. He's Australian, not British. I'm assuming that was what you were insinuating anyway.

2. What was your point then? The English Civil War effectively removed the idea of the Divine Right of Kings in this country. Even after the resurrection of the monarchy, the power of the kind was severely limited.

You assume incorrectly.

My point (as usual) was that cosmetic changes to the framework in which the power elite oppresses those whose blood it drains, is the least important thing to focus on.
The Divine Right of Kings, and all those titles didn't come from angels and burning bushes, it came from corrupt and venal men. Just like the false aura used to enshrine Presidents, Ayatollahs, Premiers, or Dear Leaders.

It is all a con game.

And those who benefit from it in the least seem to squeal the loudest when it is exposed.

 

[lomiller]

Irrelevant. The law privileged them.

The law “protected their rights” as they saw it, just as you see US laws “protecting the rights” of the wealthy.

The law does not, and cannot, privilege the rich in the US.

Then why is having wealthy parents a bigger influence on success in the US than almost every other western democracy? If it’s not the laws crating this condition what is?

I've already proven you wrong. Asserting the contrary won't change that.

If you recall the assertion was yours (you asserted that the US invented freedom of speech) and at best you have created a stawman to attack instead of providing evidence for your assertion.

 

[Ziggurat]

How about that it seems an off shoot of free speech seems to mean you cant tell the difference between heresy and hate crimes

It's so cute that you think there is a difference. Your faith in your government masters (or should I say parents?) to never make a mistake with this power is also endearing. From a distance, anyways.

 

[Ziggurat]

The law “protected their rights” as they saw it, just as you see US laws “protecting the rights” of the wealthy.

The difference being that "their rights" were different than the peasantry's. But the rights of the wealthy are not, in fact, any different than the rights of the poor.

Then why is having wealthy parents a bigger influence on success in the US than almost every other western democracy? If it’s not the laws crating this condition what is?

Perhaps it's simply the parents themselves. Funny how you can't imagine anything happening except what the law does.

If you recall the assertion was yours (you asserted that the US invented freedom of speech)

Not exactly. What I claimed was that the first amendment gave far more protection to speech than ever before (and mostly since).

and at best you have created a stawman to attack instead of providing evidence for your assertion.

Not so. I have backed up my actual claim, and your counterclaims have all been disproven.

 

[lomiller]

Perhaps it's simply the parents themselves.

So your reason why the US is less of a meritocracy than other western countries is “US parents are not as good”? To me that simply raises the question why US parents are worse.

I also note you use the weasel word “perhaps”. “Perhaps” gets us nowhere, there are a lot of things that could “perhaps” be true why don’t you try making a case that it really is.

Not so. I have backed up my actual claim,

No in fact you have not presented any evidence for you claim that there was no freedom of speech prior to “the US inventing it in 1776”.

 

[crimresearch]

So your reason why the US is less of a meritocracy than other western countries is “US parents are not as good”? To me that simply raises the question why US parents are worse.

I also note you use the weasel word “perhaps”. “Perhaps” gets us nowhere, there are a lot of things that could “perhaps” be true why don’t you try making a case that it really is.



No in fact you have not presented any evidence for you claim that there was no freedom of speech prior to “the US inventing it in 1776”.

Oooh! quotation marks... Well, that settles it then, because no one here would ever create a forgery and put their own quotation marks around it, now would they?

Except I'm having trouble finding the post # from which that quote was copied...
Linky, please?

 

[Ziggurat]

So your reason why the US is less of a meritocracy than other western countries is “US parents are not as good”? To me that simply raises the question why US parents are worse.

You made a lot of assumptions in this reply, assumptions which you haven't actually backed up. I'll let you ponder what they are for a while.

I also note you use the weasel word “perhaps”. “Perhaps” gets us nowhere

I use "perhaps" because your claim itself hasn't been established. No sense in trying too hard to explain something I'm not even sure exists.

there are a lot of things that could “perhaps” be true why don’t you try making a case that it really is.

I don't really need to. You implied a specific cause. All I really need to do is show that other causes are possible in order to show that you need to actually demonstrate that your implied cause is right. Otherwise, you simply don't have a point.

No in fact you have not presented any evidence for you claim that there was no freedom of speech prior to “the US inventing it in 1776”.

That was never my claim. My claim was that the 1st amendment provided more freedom of speech (significantly more) than previously existed. Can you tell the difference? No, perhaps you cannot.

But that's your problem, not mine. Just like it's your problem that all your attempted counterpoints have been disproven.

 

[MG1962]

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

I wonder what year that was written

 

[Ziggurat]

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

I wonder what year that was written

I wonder what actually became of those words. Its funny what "such abuses" ended up meaning. And what "responsible" ended up as.

Words mean nothing if not put into practice.