Bye. Leave, then. Later.
2006-10-05 22:49:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Where do you get that from? The "free speech" thing is in our Constitution. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers put it in so that the government could not throw any of us in jail if we were to say something like, George Bush is a lying, maniacal, egotistical, war-mongering, incompetent, jerk.
And in response to SteveUK. Angry much? Don't blame America for everything. Why was it to the benefit of Americans that you attended an English Grammar School? You seem to be confusing the current Administration with actual Americans. George Bush & Co. are the ones who say it is un-patriotic to criticize.
Your learning about John Dulles wanting to use nuclear warheads against North Korea does not debunk the myth that America will use nuclear weapons as a last resort because they didn't use them.
We don't take the movies as factual truth. Movies are not reality. They are not documentaries. They are fictional stories. They may be based on actual events, but we know the difference. Come on, talk about being magnanimous.
I agree with what you say about how "America" the government has acted since Vietnam. A Republican president got us into Vietnam. Since Vietnam ended, we have only had two Democratic presidents. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. All the rest have been Republican. Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Daddy Bush, and now Idiot Bush. It's those Republicans who befriended and then betrayed Saddam and then made him our enemy. They seem to put money, oil and power over everything else. They're now using the "War on Terror" as their excuse to do whatever they want. I don't know where they got that spreading democracy crap. What they spread is a bunch of lies. Since 2000, it seems that they want power so badly that they're willing to rig the elections. We'll see if they try it again this November.
All I'm saying is, try not to think we are all like the way you described us. We can't stand it either. Cheers.
2006-10-06 15:02:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by grrandram 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hypocrisy has a simple meaning, say what is nice, do what is necessary.
Hypocrisy has a bit more complex meaning. Say what is nice, do whatever is necessary and yet believe what you do is always nice.
For America, Freedom of speech is a nice thing to say, necessary to curtail selectively and important to shove such curtailments under the carpet to maintain the happy illusion of freedom of speech for everyone, better than anywhere else in the world.
2006-10-06 06:27:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by small 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
You may be right about the *smugness*, as well as the Al-Zarqawi example. However, let me say this, objectively:
Regardless of political or cultural context, no matter how democratic, the freedom of speech is a guarantee that does not translate *always* to tolerance for contrary ideas...in America, as in every other country which Constitution enshrines it. We expect it to be even less, if not altogether absent, in totalitarian, repressive states.
However, to imply that a people’s smugness, despite practical and/or attitudinal failings in the implementation or observance of their very own constitutionally enshrined freedom, amounts to hypocrisy *is* to ignore, if not to glorify, the denial of the very same freedom, or the guarantee thereof, by a repressive or totalitarian state.
While the failure of a free and democratic people, American or otherwise, to abide consistently and humbly (or less smugly, if you will) by their own free speech ideal, *may* constitute a failure amounting to hypocrisy, let us not be as blind to the fact that there are peoples who must survive under regimes that *do* and continue to refuse to entertain the possibility of their own people having any iota of freedom to say anything even remotely unfavorable, much less contrary, to the rulers’ diktat.
We may be uncomfortable with a people's attitudinal manifestations inconsistent with the spirit of the freedom, but it is their freedom, as well as ours, to believe and act pursuant to and as consistently as possible with their/our belief in the desirability of that ideal.
I can live with the failings of those who believe and try. However, I must be realistic about the magnitude of the problem -- there are peoples who must yet survive without even a mere *promise* of the same freedom, or some semblance of it, in their lifetime.
2006-10-06 07:05:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by saberlingo 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Americans are brain-washed by their media and establishment from a young age, to believe blindly in the 'stars and stripes', that any 'American can become President' and that they are the 'leaders of the free world'. Every morning they blindly swear their allegiance to the flag at school, sing the national anthem at every domestic sporting event, and watch TV and films that constantly rewrite history to their immortality.
It makes the old Soviet Union and current Chinese governmental attempts at indoctrination seem truly half-assed!
I attended an English Grammar School (which for the benefit of Americans, was a state operated school of excellence. Pupils were admitted by passing entrance exams and had to be ahead of the average child already. They are Anglican orientated schools, as England used to be an Anglican state, though now has a government of Roman Catholics, Neo-Cons, Christian Xionists & Opus Dei?.) and yet we never sang the National Anthem, though 'Jerusalem' was sang on Speech Day and Founders Day. In the rest of the world, we sing our National Anthem and other patriotic songs at International sporting events, not before every football (soccer), cricket or rugby game. We also teach History that predates Columbus, and whilst the quality of that teaching varies depending on the quality of the teacher and funding available, is only twisted by the fact that ancient history was always written by the winners. We generally try to keep to the facts.
Throughout Europe patriotism is a two-sided sword, which has its place but is not flaunted. In America patriotism is compulsory. In the West, it is okay to criticise, especially if the criticism is constructive and based on fact. In America it is unpatriotic.
Since the Second World War, America abandoned its isolationist policy and started invading any poor country it could fantasise an excuse for so doing. Where it could not invade, it paid for terrorism to disrupt the everyday life of that countries citizens (Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Iran). It has armed dictators to fight wars so that there weren't US bodybags coming home, as they learnt in Vietnam that Americans don't like seeing their own people get hurt (Saddam Hussein being the most obvious current example. They [& the UK] armed him, to fight Iran. The US sold him Anthrax. Following Saddams invasion of Kuwait, they armed the Marsh Arabs as terrorists, and told them that if they stirred up enough sh*t, their troops would be justified in entering the country. They rose up, lost and were killed for their terrorism, and the US abandoned them. Now the US invades to punish Saddam for their actions!). It was the US who armed Al-Qaeeda, although in those days we called them 'the Mujhaddin' and they were heroic freedom fighters against the evil Soviet Union. The IRAs original charter states communism as their desired objective, yet received major US funding to kill members of the UK, whilst supporting communism was supposedly unpatriotic?
They are still the only country to have used nuclear warheads in battle, and now use uranium tipped shells and missiles as standard. John Foster Dulles (who has an airport named after him) desired using nuclear missiles against N Korea when planning the Korean War. His allies vetoed this, because the Soviet Union had already completed successful nuclear missile testing, and the risk of reprisals was too great. This is now known because OUR governments documents from the time became declassified a few years ago. This completely debunked the US myth of using nuclear missiles as a last resort, and deterrent. The same government docs show that Israel was supplied with military nuclear technology and equipment, contrary to the Anti-proliferation Treaty.
Yet Hollywood tells these ignorant Americans that it was US troops who successfully boarded a German U-boat and obtained the 'Enigma' machine in tact in 1941, when the US was not even in the war in 1941, and this heroic deed was in fact carried out by Brits. What an insult to their courage. Apparently, the Greeks took women to the battlefields of Troy, and there were no Gods there. Robin Hood had an American accent. Russell Crowe brought the Roman Empire to its knees, though the only gladiator revolution in Roman history led to more than 3000 glads being crucified along the length and breadth of both sides of the Appian Way! Wisely the gladiators kept quiet after that. But to Americans, fact should not get in the way of a good bit of propagandist film. Makes Hitler/Goebbels look ****-poor!
Any American with over $10million financial support can be bought the presidency, so long as he's a he and white. Only 'black' killers get the death penalty. And, now, apparently terrorism is bad? What a grasp of understanding, only 30 years after Europe learnt this due to fighting terrorism eg Bader-Meinhof, Black September, ETA, PLO.
Such an ignorant race of inbreds, yet so magnaminous in their belief that they know best.
Thank God the sleeping giant of the world, China, is also now coming out of isolationism, and watch Americas allies abandon them to get a foothold in the biggest virgin market in the world. China will crush the US hoisting it by its own petard, money.
2006-10-06 10:34:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by SteveUK 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
America, like all countries, is full of double standards.
2006-10-06 06:44:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋