America the Proud?

[Hasty Ent]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Look at the Skokie, PA case. A racist anti-Semitic group wanted to march through a neighbourhood heavily populated by Jews; in spite of overwhelming public revulsion the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) fought and won their right to peacefully assemble.

it was Skokie, Illinois, not Pennsylvania

As far as I know, there are NO countries that are totally free, including the United States. Furthermore, I don't understand the position that books are not banned in the US. It is my belief that they are.

I've excerpted the following from a site on banned books http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html

"Ulysses by James Joyce was recently selected by the Modern Library as the best novel of the 20th century, and has received wide praise from other literature scholars, including those who have defended online censorship. (Carnegie Mellon English professor and vice-provost Erwin Steinberg, who praised the book in 1994, also defended CMU's declaration that year to delete alt.sex and some 80 other newsgroups, claiming they were legally obligated to do so.) Ulysses was barred from the United States as obscene for 15 years, and was seized by U.S Postal Authorities in 1918 and 1930. The lifting of the ban in 1933 came only after advocates fought for the right to publish the book.

In 1930, U.S. Customs seized Harvard-bound copies of Candide, Voltaire's critically hailed satire, claiming obscenity. Two Harvard professors defended the work, and it was later admitted in a different edition. In 1944, the US Post Office demanded the omission of Candide from a mailed Concord Books catalog. "

and more recently:
"An illustrated edition of "Little Red Riding Hood" was banned in two California school districts in 1989. Following the Little Red-Cap story from Grimm's Fairy Tales, the book shows the heroine taking food and wine to her grandmother. The school districts cited concerns about the use of alcohol in the story. "

There are good and bad qualities in every country. The US is not perfect, but it's not a terrible place to live. I would not say I'm proud of it: 40 million people with no health insurance, miserly support for the arts due to disdain at worst and disinterest at best, a consumer culture caught up in accumulating items they don't need, and a citizenry that is often arrogant with respect to other countries and their worth. On the other hand, there is a history of achievement and exploration if not tolerance. Of course, rampant materialism is not exclusively an American characteristic, nor is intolerance.

The problem with "pride" and "patriotism" is it so often grows into a "I'm better than ________" attitude. Hardly conducive to peaceful coexistance with other cultures.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
If you mean by that that is not considered a constitutional right, you are only speaking for the US case, for instance, in my country it IS considered a constitutional right.

Is it "considered" a Constitutional right or "IS it" a Constitutional right. When it comes to a constitional - there is no "considered" - it either is or isn't.

Which article in the Portugal Constition is it guaranteed in?

[Spock]

Then too the political correctness in this country has had "Huckleberry Finn" removed from many libraries along with "Tom Sawyer" and other classics to future readers loss.

[Spock]

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent virture of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Sir Winston Churchill

I'd rather be here in the USA with all of our problems then "there" and miss all of our joy.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Is it "considered" a Constitutional right or "IS it" a Constitutional right. When it comes to a constitional - there is no "considered" - it either is or isn't.

Which article in the Portugal Constition is it guaranteed in?

Chapter 2
Social Rights and Duties
Artº63
1. Everyone has the right to social security.


The other issues (posted before) I'll answer later

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
As far as I know, there are NO countries that are totally free, including the United States. Furthermore, I don't understand the position that books are not banned in the US. It is my belief that they are.

I've excerpted the following from a site on banned books http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html

"Ulysses by James Joyce was recently selected by the Modern Library as the best novel of the 20th century, and has received wide praise from other literature scholars, including those who have defended online censorship. (Carnegie Mellon English professor and vice-provost Erwin Steinberg, who praised the book in 1994, also defended CMU's declaration that year to delete alt.sex and some 80 other newsgroups, claiming they were legally obligated to do so.) Ulysses was barred from the United States as obscene for 15 years, and was seized by U.S Postal Authorities in 1918 and 1930. The lifting of the ban in 1933 came only after advocates fought for the right to publish the book.

In 1930, U.S. Customs seized Harvard-bound copies of Candide, Voltaire's critically hailed satire, claiming obscenity. Two Harvard professors defended the work, and it was later admitted in a different edition. In 1944, the US Post Office demanded the omission of Candide from a mailed Concord Books catalog. "

and more recently:
"An illustrated edition of "Little Red Riding Hood" was banned in two California school districts in 1989. Following the Little Red-Cap story from Grimm's Fairy Tales, the book shows the heroine taking food and wine to her grandmother. The school districts cited concerns about the use of alcohol in the story. "

That's an erroneous statement. The books are NOT banned by the federal government. You can go to another library or another school and get those books. I'm talking about federal bans on books.

Also - both events you sited by the federal government took place in the 1930's.

The Federal Government can ban things based on obscenity laws - which I am against. The question arises - "whose standard do you use to detemine obscenity". As far as I'm concerned - as long as no minors are being used and no one is getting harmed in the process - it's not the goverments business. Nightline a couple of days ago had about Extreme Video. The produce sex videos depicting rape and murder. It is pretty gross - but as long as the the 'actors" aren't being harmed - whose business is it?

continued...

[jerseydevil]

There are good and bad qualities in every country. The US is not perfect, but it's not a terrible place to live. I would not say I'm proud of it: 40 million people with no health insurance, miserly support for the arts due to disdain at worst and disinterest at best, a consumer culture caught up in accumulating items they don't need, and a citizenry that is often arrogant with respect to other countries and their worth.

No one forces people do support the arts - that is a personal decision. You can go to plays or donate yourself - like I do. People aren't turned away from health care if they need it - the hospitals can't and they eat the cost. Whose business is it of yours if I want a flat screen plasma TV instead of black and white? Do you have color TV and if so why? Do you NEED a color TV? As for being arrogant toward other countries - you will find that the other countries are just as arrogant towards us. It goes both ways.

On the other hand, there is a history of achievement and exploration if not tolerance. Of course, rampant materialism is not exclusively an American characteristic, nor is intolerance.
[/b]

What is wrong with materialism? How much do you buy that you want versus what you need? Do you have a computer? And what kind is it? Why do you NEED it? Isn't paper and pencil good enough? If there wasn't materialism we would never invent anything. Candles worked fine - until the lightbulb was invented - but did we really need the lightbulb?

As for tolerance - the US is far more tolerant than 99.9% of the countries on earth. Everyone points at how the US treated the Indians but ignore how the Europeans treated them before America was founded as a country or how Canada has treated it's indian population. My friend, Trish, her grandfather used to be beat in Canada for speaking Mohawk. Australia doesn't have a very good record with it's aboriginal people. Europe was the one that brought slavery to America's shores. Germany gave us Hitler, Italy brought Mussellini, Russia gave the world Stalin. The US has been more than tolerant compared to other countries.

What happned to the blacks in the south was an outrage during the 60's - but things have changed and now it is time to move into the 21st century and finally put that behind us - along with the reverse discrimination known as affirmative action. Attitudes take time to change and you can't say if you lived during the 1700's or the 1960's if you would have treated blacks any differently than the way they were treated. We base our opinions on the times and places we live.

The problem with "pride" and "patriotism" is it so often grows into a "I'm better than ________" attitude. Hardly conducive to peaceful coexistance with other cultures.

That depends. I do like the US the best - but that doesn't mean I am uninterested in other countries or their history. I just feel that for me - the US offers what I want the most.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Those were state laws - hnot national laws. As our Constitution says - anything not specified in the Constitution is left to the states. The case was brought before the supreme court and the court determined that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. it's the way our system works.

There were only a handful of anti-sodomy laws in the US and most of them were blue laws. it was because of the Texas event where two people in the privacy of their home were arrested that made everyone outraged.

As I said before - the federal government has very few laws - the majority of laws are determined individually by the states. NJ didn't have anti-sodomy laws. So you shoudn't say that the US caught up to Canada - because there were no laws under the US federal government talking about sodomy one way or the other. Now it has been deremined unconstitutional and all states had to eliminate all their anti-sodomy laws.

Cases under state sodomy laws were brought up before the Supreme Court many times; the last before the present was in 1986. The Supremes ruled that these laws were Constitutional- that individual states could have a place in the bedrooms of that state anyway.

Just as up until Brown vs Board of Education (1954) they ruled that the Constitution protected the rights of states to keep black children out of white classrooms.

Now, if it is held to be permissible for the various states to make laws infringing on the liberty and equality of individuals, then this permission is given by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

So the Constitution says that the states have the right to violate an individual as long as the form of that violation is not specifically forbidden at the federal level.

So I won't oppress you, but I'll give authorization to someone else to.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Cases under state sodomy laws were brought up before the Supreme Court many times; the last before the present was in 1986. The Supremes ruled that these laws were Constitutional- that individual states could have a place in the bedrooms of that state anyway.

Just as up until Brown vs Board of Education (1954) they ruled that the Constitution protected the rights of states to keep black children out of white classrooms.

Now, if it is held to be permissible for the various states to make laws infringing on the liberty and equality of individuals, then this permission is given by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

So the Constitution says that the states have the right to violate an individual as long as the form of that violation is not specifically forbidden at the federal level.

Basically - yes. The states have a right to make their own laws. You might want to read Amendment X of the Constitution. Anything not forbidden by the Constitution is left up to the states to detemine. It's mostly the southern states and very religious states that seem to feel they have a place in people's bedrooms. There were only like 9 or 13 states that had anti-sodomy laws.

So I won't oppress you, but I'll give authorization to someone else to.

A person has a roll in their state government. Theyare closer to theirlocal and state government - which they therefore have a greater say in. The citizens of the state are the ones who determine the laws. If person doesn't like a law in their state - they need to work to get it changed. It's not the government who is oppressing people - it's their fellow citizen.

By taking the texas case to the supreme court - the anti-sodomy laws were overturned. You may not have liked the laws like I didn't - but there was an outlet to get them changed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Chapter 2
Social Rights and Duties
Artº63
1. Everyone has the right to social security.

That's not guaranteed health care though.

[GrayMouser]

BTW the "Bill of No Rights" was not written by Mitchell Kaye, as he freely acknowledges. He just liked it and posted it, and a lot of people attributed it to him.

It was written by Lewis Napper, a Libertarian, and has been altered without acknowledgment. This is the original, which is what Rep. Kaye posted:

The Bill of No Rights
by Lewis Napper*
We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some commonsense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, delusional and other liberal, bedwetters.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people were confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights.

ARTICLE I

You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II

You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III

You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV

You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V

You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI

You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII

You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big-screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE IX

You don't have the right to a job. All of us sure want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X

You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness -which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that Article X in the version cited about the primacy of English has been simply fabricated- it's not the kind of thing most libertarians would say

But the interesting part is Article VIII which has been chucked down the memory hole- I wonder why?

ARTICLE VIII

You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

.

(Please note I'm not accusing either jd or his source of changing the original- the altered version is widely cited)

[GrayMouser]

Sorry, should have put the link in to the original:

http://www.i-star.com/users/lrudel/bill.htm

[Elvellon]

Wrong, social security encompass healthcare, among other things, that is why I choose it instead of the more limited, but to the point, Artº64
1.Everyone has the right to health protection and the duty to protect it and promote it.

[Elvellon]

What does that matter if you don't even have a right to state your opinions?

Nope, you have the right to state your opinions; you don’t have the right to trespass into someone private domain.

I have a right to people coming into my home and so forth. But if someone finds out about something - it can be made public. I know England has no problem revealing the private lives of people - maybe you do - but in England all you have ot do is see what happened with he Diana tapes. Her privacy there wasn't protected and they even listened in on private phone calls. I am unsure if a person can do what happened to Princess Diana in your country though.

I’m aware of the Diana issue, (in a generic way, I’m not sure about what tapes you are talking about). Here you do not have the right to trespass into someone’s private life, unless the fact revealed is of public relevance. For instance, if a minister was having an affair, that would not be considered a matter of the public domain, unless if somehow it would affect the state, or if, said minister publicly spoke against adultery as part of his political campaign, then, the duplicity of statement vs. conduct would make it a public affair.

When a person in power has an affair it DOES have an affect on national security. It's not private - national secrets can be revealed. Also - if a person can't keep it zipped and stay faithful to his wife - in what other ways aren't they being truthful. Especially - as in Clinton's case he pointed right at the camera and said - "I have never had sexual relations with that woman". But it was less about the sex than it was about him trying to convince people to lie under oath in a court of law.

You see, that is simply a cultural perspective. Your culture sees it as a matter of state, in most of continental Europe it is not seen so. Unless it does affect the state (to use the Clinton example. If he was a local politician, and had said nothing, then the issue would be strictly his, of his wife, and the third person. At the moment that he himself bring it up, especially in court, t is no longer so).

It is well known that conjugal fidelity is not a highly rated political attribute among continental politicians, simply because we make a distinction between private and public life.

We look at the president as being our employee - not as the "supreme leader" of our country. The government works and answers to us. If they're private life gets in the way of there job - then it is the public's business.

So do we, that is why we do not consider legitimate to intrude into a politician (or any other person) personal life. Distinction of their public and private role.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
BTW the "Bill of No Rights" was not written by Mitchell Kaye, as he freely acknowledges. He just liked it and posted it, and a lot of people attributed it to him.

It was written by Lewis Napper, a Libertarian, and has been altered without acknowledgment.

I didn't know who originally wrote it - i have a slight problem with "article X" in the one that I posted - but not a complete problem. Poeple come over here - they should want to be Americans - not be Mexicans, italians, Iranians just living in America. I'm not saying they should completely do away with their culture - but I knew someone from Brazil who constantly complained about everything. You know what though - no one forced her here and she's more than welcome to go back to Brazil if it's so much better like she kept saying. If it's better there - then why is she here?

Note that Article X in the version cited about the primacy of English has been simply fabricated- it's not the kind of thing most libertarians would say

But the interesting part is Article VIII which has been chucked down the memory hole- I wonder why?

Even though I am partial Libertarian - i disagree with Article VIII of their version that is one of the reasons I don't consider myself a Libertarian - but a Republitarian.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elvellon

Nope, you have the right to state your opinions; you don’t have the right to trespass into someone private domain.

It's agains tthe law to enter into someone's house - that is tresspassing. We have laws against that. If you however don't have the right ot speak out and state your beliefs and ideas - then what freedoms do you have if someone can muzzle your thoughts.

I’m aware of the Diana issue, (in a generic way, I’m not sure about what tapes you are talking about). Here you do not have the right to trespass into someone’s private life, unless the fact revealed is of public relevance. For instance, if a minister was having an affair, that would not be considered a matter of the public domain, unless if somehow it would affect the state, or if, said minister publicly spoke against adultery as part of his political campaign, then, the duplicity of statement vs. conduct would make it a public affair.

Well the British Press taped her priavte conversations and released them to the public. I don't see how Diana's love life and her problems with idiot charles - had anything to do with the public.

You see, that is simply a cultural perspective. Your culture sees it as a matter of state, in most of continental Europe it is not seen so. Unless it does affect the state (to use the Clinton example. If he was a local politician, and had said nothing, then the issue would be strictly his, of his wife, and the third person. At the moment that he himself bring it up, especially in court, t is no longer so).

yes - and most of Europe has no problem trying to tell us how we should behave and react to this kind of thing. it's our country and we will deal with issues the way we see fit.

It is well known that conjugal fidelity is not a highly rated political attribute among continental politicians, simply because we make a distinction between private and public life.

As if it isn't in many other people? Although that like saying that cheating is okay - because everyone does it. It's not okay no matter how many people do it. It's a bond of trust and trust is the most important thing.

So do we, that is why we do not consider legitimate to intrude into a politician (or any other person) personal life. Distinction of their public and private role.

If the president has sex in the oval office - that is like having sex at the workplace. I bet if your boss caught you haveing sex in your workplace - you would not be there much longer. When it took place in the Oval Office - it became the people's business. Wehn the Lewinski crap went on between Clinton and her - the government was shutdown because the budget hadn't passed - while Senators were attempting to call him to set up meetings and dsicuss things - he was putting them on hold while he was gettiing b/js - sorry - but that did affect the country.

John F Kennedy also had many affairs - but as far as I know - none of them took place in the Oval Office and none of them required him to put Congressmen on hold or put the government on the back burner while he got some.

Right now they are dragging Arnold Swarzenneggar through the mud because supposed when he first came out to the US - he had group sex at the gym. He had also at one point in time said that he looked at women as sex objects. He later said in an interview that his feelings on sex have changed.

[Lalaith]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I think in a FREE country the ideas of others should always be allowed to be expressed - whether you argree with them or not. Hitler wasn't elected for the extermination of the jews or to start a war or to burn books. He was able to do what he did because his power wasn't checked and he was able to brainwash an entire nation.

No, I don't think so. Most ideas should be allowed to expressed, but not all of them. I think that right winged extremists threaten and discriminate against foreigners and that should not be allowed. Wether it reduces the right of free speech or not.

You might want to reread what I said - where did I say the Prime Minister could do EVERYTHING? The Prime Minister however is more powerful than our president though.

You didn't say. But you said it as if he has enourmous power here but it isn't so. We have a parliament.

Funny - I've never seen these right wingers here making speeches on the steps or anything. I have seen plenty of skin head and neo nazi marches in Germany though - so obviously you aren't taking away enough of their freedoms. maybe you should just lock them up for their ideas.

Who said that they make speeches in public. But they settle and make their operations.
Of course we cannot take them their whole freedom. There have to be a breaking of laws and evidence for it.

There was recently a documentary on the neo-nazi party in the US on tv this week. It included how after World War II - many of europe's nazi members came over here to set up camp. Their ideas are protected by the Constitution and no matter how much I may hate them - I would hate it more if we restricted them. I would rather fight them with enlightment - than with taking away their freedoms.

In my opinion they should be forbidden. End of discussion. But maybe you have another relation to National Socialism because it was never a that important issue for you than it was for us.

yeah - France was on our side during WWII - I assume that's what you mean by "on our side". What does that have to do with anything?

I said it because you said that they almost elected some right winged politician in France. My sentence from above fits in here:
But maybe they have another relation to National Socialism because it was never a that important issue for them than it was for us.
They were not that concerned about that whole topic as much as we are and therefore the awareness is maybe not that big.
That is no affront or dispraise, just a thought of me.

[Lalaith]

Don't the voters prevent National Socialism by not voiting for them? Or are your countries still bigotted that you need to have laws to prevent the resurgence of National Socialism? The Communists are an official party in the US - no one votes for them - but they can have a presidential candidate. And i do get it - you restrict the freedoms of others to have their opinions and then try to say you live in a free country. I don't agree with Socialism, The Green Party, the KKK, the White Supremicist or the Communist Party or the Neo Nazis - but I still feel they all have a right to their ideas and free expression of those ideas - however heinous or outrageous they may be - just as long as they don't result in the harm of others.

It is not that we have forbidden every single right thought. In fact we have a very popular right winged party (not proud of that).
And we do have a Communists party, it excists, but hardly anybody votes for them.
I only agree with two parties here in Austria, but I also don't think that the others should be forbidden. Of course not. We have a democracy. The government needs someone who controlls them. Plus not everybody can have the same opinion.
So there is actually freedom.
But you don't understand that it is not really a reduction of freedom to forbid National Socialism, it is a system to prevent crime and to keep the freedom of foreigners.

I'm sure you know what communism is. You just seem to feel the US is too right wing for you. That is fine - we have a free country where people can openly express there feelings - whether you agree with them or not. You seem to bury and outlaw half your populations opinions. I gather it's half if you're afraid that the neo-nazis will again come to power.

No, I don't think that it is too right winged for me. Some people may be to right winged, but these people exist in every country. I have to live with them, although I do not appreciate their thoughts.
Yah, we also have this law because right wing radicalism is still an issue here and will always be. I can admit that.

(I think you should argue about that topic with someone who really knows everything about the constitution ... I am just learning it, I'm no expert, sorry).

Ah, there comes another thing to my mind. It could be that we have these laws because of the contract we had to sign at the end of the war. Could be. At any rate this is the reason why we are eg not allowed to go to war.

If you think that the boss gets better care when it comes to health insurance in the US - you are wrong. How high are your taxes to pay for all this superior service? Contrary to many outsiders beliefs - no one is turned away from a hospital who needs treatment. By law - whether a person is homeless or not - they must be given care.

The taxes depend. The whole takes and everything depend very much on how much you earn.
You can't take half of the money of a person who only earns 1,000 Euro a month.
I know that the highest taxes for the salary are about 50 %. I know that's a lot. But you have to earn a lot to have to pay these high taxes (health insurance, pension, unemployment, income tax .....). I know about that system because I have learned it in school. Actually I should be able to charge the taxes for every salary.

Another freedom we have is that we are able to go to every school, every university we want to go. Especially Universities. You don't have to pay a fee to get into it. And they all have the same good standart. Education is no question of money here. And that's freedom for me. To do what I want. To get the best education, even if my parents are not rich, even if I'm not Einstein.




... sorry, was to long for one message
(I haven't had a political discussion for a long time, peh)

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lalaith
It is not that we have forbidden every single right thought. In fact we have a very popular right winged party (not proud of that).
And we do have a Communists party, it excists, but hardly anybody votes for them.
I only agree with two parties here in Austria, but I also don't think that the others should be forbidden. Of course not. We have a democracy. The government needs someone who controlls them. Plus not everybody can have the same opinion.
So there is actually freedom.
But you don't understand that it is not really a reduction of freedom to forbid National Socialism, it is a system to prevent crime and to keep the freedom of foreigners.

It is a reduction in freedom - when ever you take the freedoms away from one group of people because you disagree with their views - you are limiting their freedom. There is NO way around that. I'm not saying allow them to commit crimes against immigrants or to allow them to prevent freedoms of foreigners - but I assume you have laws to protect those things. People are going to have ideas - whether you like them or not and if they can't express them openly - they will just go underground where they are more dangerous. The only way the National Socialist party would be able to do the things you have said frighten you is if the majority of Austrians support them. So do the majority of Austrians support them?

Ah, there comes another thing to my mind. It could be that we have these laws because of the contract we had to sign at the end of the war. Could be. At any rate this is the reason why we are eg not allowed to go to war.

I know that we made you agree not to go to war and reduction of armies and all this. We did the same thing with Japan. We also helped set up your Constitutions - but I seriously doubt we had you to discriminate against a certain political party or told you to ban certain books.

The taxes depend. The whole takes and everything depend very much on how much you earn.
You can't take half of the money of a person who only earns 1,000 Euro a month.
I know that the highest taxes for the salary are about 50 %. I know that's a lot. But you have to earn a lot to have to pay these high taxes (health insurance, pension, unemployment, income tax .....). I know about that system because I have learned it in school. Actually I should be able to charge the taxes for every salary.

50% if ridiculous. I'm for flat tax - I think everyone should pay about 20% above 23,000 or there abouts. I think having graduated income taxes is a form of descimination against people who make more money.

Another freedom we have is that we are able to go to every school, every university we want to go. Especially Universities. You don't have to pay a fee to get into it. And they all have the same good standart. Education is no question of money here. And that's freedom for me. To do what I want. To get the best education, even if my parents are not rich, even if I'm not Einstein.

We have public education and I seriously doubt that ALL schools at equally good. That would be impossible. There are a lot of benefits for people to go to college here and anyone who wants to go to college can go to college. It doesn't have to be a government handout.

As for lower level education - k - 12th - republicans support the use of vouchers that allow parents to choose where they want their children to go to school. I am for that. If someone doesn't like the school that their child would be forced to go to - they should be able to take their share of their money and put their child in the school they want (if it's a private school - then they have to pay the difference). It creates competition within the schools and forces the bad schools to either shape up or close down. Ironically - the democrats are against vouchers which will allow inner city parents to send their children to better schools.

[Elvellon]

It's agains the law to enter into someone's house - that is tresspassing. We have laws against that. If you however don't have the right ot speak out and state your beliefs and ideas - then what freedoms do you have if someone can muzzle your thoughts.

And since the right of free speech in itself is guaranteed, and what was being debated was merely the case of conflicting rights, the issue is moot.

yes - and most of Europe has no problem trying to tell us how we should behave and react to this kind of thing. it's our country and we will deal with issues the way we see fit.

I agree, I couldn’t said it better, I have the same problem with many American neocons, if they would acknowledge that too, and stop telling us how we should do things I believe it would make relations more simple for both sides, after all, we don’t like being said how we should deal with things in our countries too.

As if it isn't in many other people? Although that like saying that cheating is okay - because everyone does it. It's not okay no matter how many people do it. It's a bond of trust and trust is the most important thing.

Nope, it is not as saying that cheating is OK, nor does that means everybody is doing it. It does means, however, that we don’t judge the private life of a politician as part of his public life, furthermore, it is up to those concerned by the cheating to take action as they deem appropriate, not the public.