In response to Strawgate (#33)
There's a place where intellectually disabled people are killed, because they were found guilty on scanty evidence.

There's a place where citizens of other countries are held in conditions worse then prison, without a trial, where it has been alleged that there has been torture.

There's a place that declared war on another country with no good reason.

There's a place where the government is legally allowed to violate peoples privacy

There's a place where "Communist" is considered to mean "Evil"

There's a place where the media is controlled entirely by a conglomerate that pushes one political opinion.

There's a place where the state religion influences policy to the point that it would be impossible to be an atheist and the countries leader.

There's a country that has never had a leader who wasn't white, rich and male.

There's a country with a long history of rasicism and oppression, including legal slavery at some point.

As you may have guessed, that's America.
In response to Jp (#40)
Jp wrote:
As you may have guessed, that's America.

Interesting information. Do you also have an answer to the original questions? Here they are again:

Out of curiousity, can you think of any countries in the world with less freedom than the US?

Do you consider Afghanistan under the Taliban to have been more free than the US? Iraq under Saddam?

If so, how exactly would you define freedom?
In response to Jp (#38)
Jp wrote:
Bush has all the power. He's the one that says "Lets go bomb this random country!", and that's what happens.

That's nothing. Check out my power:

<font size=+1>CITIZENS OF EARTH! I, YOUR LORD AND MASTER, COMMAND YOU TO BREATHE!</font>

Bwahahahahaha! I merely need to type things out in a large font on an insignificant online forum, and six billion people instantly conform! You are all but pawns to my omnipotent might--the very planets themselves move to my decree! I demand that the Earth start rotating with a 24-hour period! I command Jupiter to revolve around the sun! Bow before my awesome cosmic power!
In response to Leftley (#42)
Leftley wrote:
Jp wrote:
Bush has all the power. He's the one that says "Lets go bomb this random country!", and that's what happens.

That's nothing. Check out my power:

<font size=+1>CITIZENS OF EARTH! I, YOUR LORD AND MASTER, COMMAND YOU TO BREATHE!</font>

Bwahahahahaha! I merely need to type things out in a large font on an insignificant online forum, and six billion people instantly conform! You are all but pawns to my omnipotent might--the very planets themselves move to my decree! I demand that the Earth start rotating with a 24-hour period! I command Jupiter to revolve around the sun! Bow before my awesome cosmic power!

/me bows to Leftley's awesome cosmic power!
In response to Teh Governator (#43)
<font size=6>Citizens of Earth! Eat!

</font>
See... I win, and some people really like meh, thats why there Fat...
In response to Strawgate (#44)
I'm Canadian, but thinking about the American presidents of the past. Most of them have been shot. Either because people didn't like them or they did something wrong. Now Bush has not been shot. It seems most people of America likes what hes doing right now.
In response to Mechanios (#45)
Most people that tried to keep Peace, got killed. Jesus, kennedy, lincon, Marten Luther King. Lots more....
Chwgt wrote:
Should bush have stayed president, or would we have been better with the other runner?

I think we would have been better with the other runner, the libertarian one. However, we will not have one of these better little guys in until everyone realises the foolishness of not voting for someone just because you think he/she won't win.

It is that collective action itself that keeps them from winning. If everyone would smarten up we would be much better off.
In response to Mechanios (#45)
Only four have been shot and died from it, and around eight have been shot at.

I wouldn't call that "Most of them."
In response to Repiv (#48)
Repiv wrote:
Only four have been shot and died from it, and around eight have been shot at.

I wouldn't call that "Most of them."

Y'know, not many Prime Ministers have been shot at or killed. Why don't the Presidents ban guns?
In response to Elation (#49)
Elation wrote:
Why don't the Presidents ban guns?

The biggest reason is because they can't. As has been said multiple times in this thread, the president does not have enough power himself to pull such things.

Another good reason is that such an act would be terrible. In fact, such a "law" would be morally illegal. There would be a huge outcry, and the vast majority of us would snatch up all the guns before they were disposed of. I would not be at all surprised if there were a complete rebellion.
I believe we are doing alright with Bush.

-Ryan
In response to Loduwijk (#47)
Loduwijk wrote:
Chwgt wrote:
Should bush have stayed president, or would we have been better with the other runner?

I think we would have been better with the other runner, the libertarian one. However, we will not have one of these better little guys in until everyone realises the foolishness of not voting for someone just because you think he/she won't win.

It is that collective action itself that keeps them from winning. If everyone would smarten up we would be much better off.

Wait, one sec...weren't you a Bush supporter? I recall that you were because, you & I used to debate about how stupid Bush was in Chatters. >_>
In response to Teh Governator (#52)
Wait, one sec...weren't you a Bush supporter? I recall that you were because, you & I used to debate about how stupid Bush was in Chatters. >_>

He's probably just supporting Bush over Kerry but would rather have had the libertarian guy win which wasn't even a remote chance :P.
In response to Loduwijk (#50)
Loduwijk wrote:
Another good reason is that such an act would be terrible. In fact, such a "law" would be morally illegal. There would be a huge outcry, and the vast majority of us would snatch up all the guns before they were disposed of. I would not be at all surprised if there were a complete rebellion.

In Australia, owning a gun is considered a privilege rather than a right. Most people, in fact, don't own guns. We have far less gun-related deaths than the U.S. Same goes for Canada, I'm told.

The only reason I can see for owning a gun is to defend yourself. Which sounds fair enough, until you think: defend yourself from who?

Well, from all the other people that own guns.

So if nobody had guns, nobody would need guns! And everybody would be happy! HAPPY! ... But unfortunately, nobody will give up their "right" to own weapons before everyone else does, because they want to defend themselves from all the other nutters who own guns. Catch-22.

Man, having the right to own weapons would suck. I'm glad the people of Australia aren't cursed with that right. =P
In response to Deadron (#41)
Note that I said least free in the western world, which doesn't include the two you specified.

I can think of countries with less freedom, that still doesn't keep the US of the bottom rungs. Yes, the Taliban was bad. Yes, Saddam was bad. Worse then America. But I still think that you don't have a particularly free country. When your president is able to pass the 'Patriot Act', which basically allows the government to break most of the laws they've set up for themselves, you've got problems.

Freedom is difficult to define. Sort of like irony, you know? You know it when you see it, but defining it is difficult?

Here's a go at it: Freedom is the ability to do what you want, without infinging on other peoples ability to do what they want.
In response to Jp (#55)
Freedom is difficult to define. Sort of like irony, you know? You know it when you see it, but defining it is difficult?

With absolute freedom you have no laws or governement and can do whatever you want. Unfortuanntly so can everyone else even if it isn't in your best interest. This is anarchy and anarchy doesn't last long and just ends up transitioning into a dictatorship.

The other extreme in which there is no free will just government dictating everything isn't any better not to mention there is no way yet to achieve this :P.

A good government is one that achieves the right balance that both protects people and gives them enough freedom to pursue their dreams. Which so far has worked out fine for me in the US :P.
In response to Jp (#55)
Jp wrote:
When your president is able to pass the 'Patriot Act', which basically allows the government to break most of the laws they've set up for themselves, you've got problems.

But, its not just the president who passed the Patriot act. 50% of both the House of Representatives and Senate had to approve it before it even got to the president. Sure the President has the ability to veto it, he didn't. Had he vetoed the Patriot act chances are it still would have passed as 98/99 Senators approved, and 356/422 (84%) of Congressmen approved.

So basically the problem isn't the president, but rather the entire government.
In response to Crispy (#54)
Well, from all the other people that own guns.

Or knives, baseball bats, pointy sticks, or bigger muscles. There's always -- always -- going to be some small portion of the population that chooses to live as predatory animals, regardless of what weapons it has access to.

If I remember correctly, Australia only lost its guns a few years ago. To paraphase Senator Palpatine: I will follow your career with great interest. :)
In response to Loduwijk (#50)
Loduwijk wrote:
Another good reason is that such an act would be terrible. In fact, such a "law" would be morally illegal. There would be a huge outcry, and the vast majority of us would snatch up all the guns before they were disposed of. I would not be at all surprised if there were a complete rebellion.

What a sucky country, and I mean that with all due respect I can muster...

England rarely has any gun deaths...and we defend ourselves just as well as Americans do. The gun industry isn't that important/powerful, so you guys really should work on getting rid of guns. Innocents are dying!

And the legalisation of sub-machine guns is what I found amusing- seriously, even a pistol is over-kill, so what the hell is average joe doing with a uzi?
Those kinds of guns are designed to kill many people easily. Not for self-defence. (and if you want to get technical, every type of gun is terrible for self-defence. And I mean 'self defence' as in protecting yourself, not killing the other person. Over here we value life a little more, it seems... :/)
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8