Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many ways that the people of the USA are not free. Some of these things are not so important and some are of critical importance. As we have just seen last week the Supreme court of the United States does not think that the freedom for the people to elect their own choice of representitives for government is important. Their decision of allowing special interests to buy representitives undermines all freedoms. When the entire political class is bought and paid for then the people ultimately have no freedom.
In Canada special interests, no matter they are either corporate or union can not contribute one thin dime to the politicians. I that way I can be fairly sure that my government is doing what they really believe is best for the country and for the people as a whole. Even if they are wrong it's not because they owe some one because of their political contributions.
Now this situation in the USA is so bad that I look at American politicians as being political whores of the first degree and their financial supportors as pimps that do nothing that does not benefit them directly. This situation is by far the biggest threat to freedom in the USA.
As we have just seen last week the Supreme court of the United States does not think that the freedom for the people to elect their own choice of representitives for government is important.....
Now this situation in the USA is so bad that I look at American politicians as being political whores of the first degree and their financial supportors as pimps that do nothing that does not benefit them directly. This situation is by far the biggest threat to freedom in the USA.
You can blame the politicians that gutted the provisions embedded in the Constitution.
For example, the Electoral College was a stroke of genius, as originally conceived. Local districts would elect someone whose judgment they trusted, to go vote for two candidates for the presidency. Invariably, the most popular would be president, with the next most popular (and rival) as his vice (literally). The reason why no specific job was given to the v.p. was so that he could 'shadow' the prez, and make sure that the laws were properly executed. It worked too well - Geo.Wash. hated his V.P. and was instrumental in amending the USCON. The result was enshrining partisan politics into the executive branch - by empowering political parties.
If we had the original E.C., there would be no nationwide campaigning, since no voter could influence how the Elector would vote. And no political party would gain control over the Executive branch - and the appointments, because partisan membership wouldn't mean diddly. In fact, imagine if Bush had Kerry as his V.P., or Obama had McCain. OY!
Also, the change in the election of the Senate, made Senate races into popularity contests, requiring extensive funding to run. Repealing that change would eliminate campaign funding of Senatorial races.
And the Representatives would be the only sector actually trying to campaign to a large group of voters.
One of the reasons they changed that system is exactly as you say. The VP would spend all his time trying to sabatoge the Presidents agenda. I don't think you have the history correct either. The system was changed long after Washington. John Adams had Jefferson as a Vice President and the Two could not possible have had a more different vision of the future of the republic. Jefferson then had Aaron Burr as Vice President and again Burrr was against everything Jefferson believed in.
Now you have Biden which is almost as bad. The Obama administration should wrap a role of duct tape around Joe's mouth and leave it there until the end of the term. LOL
Yes, the U.S. is a free country, but that is not as "positive" as the connotation the word "free" carries.
Freedom means you have to do for yourself, even if you are unable to do so. If you want adequate healthcare in this country, then you're free to go out and knock down six figures a year to get one of those cadillac insurance plans. Otherwise, you're free to pay the doctor out of your own pocket whatever outrageous charges he tallies (once saw a doctor when I didn't have insurance. He said I had a sinus infection, saw me for 30 seconds, didn't even put his stethoscope on my chest, and charged me $130 for his "diagnosis." But the scrips he gave me were rockin'. It knocked it out in a day or two and I was free to do this or to not visit this doctor).
If you want to get a job knocking down at least six figures, then you're free to attend a fancy college that will aid you in pursuit of that fancy job, i.e. Penn, Yale, Berkeley, Michigan, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, etc. And you're free to attend those graduate programs as well. You're also free to not attend these colleges and to make your own way. Michael J. Fox didn't even graduate from high school, but he came to this country and knocked down a fancy salary for a long time by making crummy movies and sitcoms.
You're free to drive down the highway at 110 mph if you wish, and if someone stops you, then you better have the money and the lawyers to pay the fines and deal with the authorities. Of course, you need to have the type of income to be free to hire attack dog lawyers. And you're free to go out and make that money.
The freedom we have in this country is much like the freedom the former slaves received at the end of the Civil War...it's just freedom and not much else. They were so free many wandered around the South, looking for lost family members. Then the authorities had to crack down on this because it was their labor force, and they needed them to go back to the fields because the whites were free to NOT work in the fields (because they thought doing so was "slave" work, for the most part).
As Sartre would say, we're free to throw ourselves off a cliff or sit nude in a window like a prostitute, of course, you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. And you're free in that regard, too!
youre free to drive down the highway at 110mph, and its naive for you to think that money and lawyers will solve this problem. you are of course ignoring the fact that you have a higher chance of getting tazed by the cops in america than you would in europe, or even canada. youre free to sit nude in a window like a prostitute, however, if you are a prostitute, you will end up in jail with the other 2 million americans.
Here's one area where America is certainly free: if you don't like it here, nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to stay.
i guess thats what makes america so free, because if you have an opinion, you should move away. so whos left? people with no opinions and just say god bless america all day. yes, that is what i think of when i think of freedom. mindless patriots.
the situation is a bit more complex than that. the countries that are more free are in europe, and 99% of americans are not allowed to just run to europe. the other thing is europe is currently going through a right wing movement, and has been doing so for the past 10yrs, so by the time you get to europe, it may end up looking as authoritarian as america. one thing i have noticed though is that when americans talk about freedom, they are generally refering to economic freedom, and dont care too much about civil liberties, such as going out without being tazed by cops. in terms of that, i think europe is alot more restricting because their taxes are a lot higher, and there are more restrictions for doing business, which can be a good thing because it limits the amount of greed.
How do you know it has not helped make the city safer? Do you know how safe the city would be if they had NOT banned guns?
Not to sound racist, but maybe the reason Washington is never on the list of the safest cities to live in is because it has the largest black population of any city? There is a positive correlation between crime rate and black population, irrespective of gun laws, which is why the crime rates are so high in Camden and Gary and East St. Louis. Which have not banned guns, so everyone is free to defend themselves by shooting people, and there's crime anyway.
this is because if you dont ban guns, you can have one big shoot out and that would result is a very safe city.
this is because if you dont ban guns, you can have one big shoot out and that would result is a very safe city.
There is no way you could ever ban guns here in the US. There are millions of people, some of which have multiple guns.
You ban firearms, then you have millions of good Americans who will refuse to give them up and become felons.
I suppose it would be a good strategy for left wingers to weed out some of the Republicans, but it sure wouldn't be good for the country. Further, guns are already banned for a majority of people who use them. (they are felons, guns are stolen/unregistered)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fike2308
