China will be a democracy by 2020!

**astralis** · 12 Sep 09,, 17:52

7thsf,

And yes, we do have more freedom than the Chinese people but our freedoms are slipping away year by year.

honestly, as someone who came from a military dictatorship, i always roll my eyes when i hear fellow americans saying that because it is such an exaggeration. i cannot think of another industrialized democracy that gives greater political, civil, and economic rights than the US.

the US is more free even compared to past periods of american history-- think about the "good old days" of the 1950s, when blacks were discriminated against, commie witch-hunts seemed to be a recreational activity, and when asians were written off as coolies. hell, if you were white but not a WASP you were pretty much frozen out of the political system (kennedy was afraid his catholicism would hurt him politically).

oh, and the upper tax rate was at 94%.

**Blue** · 12 Sep 09,, 20:47

Originally Posted by astralis

honestly, as someone who came from a military dictatorship, i always roll my eyes when i hear fellow americans saying that because it is such an exaggeration. i cannot think of another industrialized democracy that gives greater political, civil, and economic rights than the US.

I beg to differ. Yes we are freer than the rest of the world, but not as free as we where 100, 200 years ago. And I am not speaking of racism and the old standards. I'm talking about the sheer number of laws governing ever more facets of our society. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, gun laws, tax laws, etc. So many restrictions placed on so much. And now they want to control healthcare too!!! No thanks. Its just another step in the direction of whence you came and I know you don't want that as much as I do. Don't tell me you can't read the writing on the wall. If you can't see what has been creeping in on us since before WWII, I don't know what else to say. We have admitted socialists and communists serving as advisors to the president. Do you not see whats wrong with that picture?

**mister unknown** · 26 Sep 09,, 02:32

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

I beg to differ. Yes we are freer than the rest of the world, but not as free as we where 100, 200 years ago. And I am not speaking of racism and the old standards. I'm talking about the sheer number of laws governing ever more facets of our society. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, gun laws, tax laws, etc. So many restrictions placed on so much. And now they want to control healthcare too!!! No thanks. Its just another step in the direction of whence you came and I know you don't want that as much as I do. Don't tell me you can't read the writing on the wall. If you can't see what has been creeping in on us since before WWII, I don't know what else to say. We have admitted socialists and communists serving as advisors to the president. Do you not see whats wrong with that picture

I, for one, am not in favor of the usual "Yay! Democracy for everyone & everywhere" dogma, but that aside, I'll have to disagree with you on what you consider freedom.

Judging by your response, you seem to ignore the fact that a century ago the majority of the US population (namely, women & non-whites, & oh... Irish need not apply) had no political voice, representation, or equal economic opportunity. If you want to measure "freedom" simply by the number of laws on paper, then by that standard, Darfur or Myanmar would be freer than the US. Bottom line, Astralis' "old standard" of "freedom" is a much more valid one than counting the number of written laws.

Frankly, I DON'T see anything wrong with that picture. Even if Obama's advisors are the "socialists & communists" you label them to be, having them in office is as American as apple pie. As far as I can tell, there is NOTHING written in the US constitution that promotes the exclusion of people from political office based on ideology. For better or worse, this means Nazis, communists, & (of course) religious fanatics all have a shot at whatever public office they want in America.

**Blue** · 26 Sep 09,, 04:41

Originally Posted by mister unknown

For better or worse, this means Nazis, communists, & (of course) religious fanatics all have a shot at whatever public office they want in America.

You're right!!! The 2nd Ammend means that when it gets really bad, and we have had enough of thier shit, we reserve the right to take it back!!

Color me a fanatic of REAL freedom, because what the Dems offer is not!!!!

**cr9527** · 26 Sep 09,, 06:44

I will have nothing useful to add.
But I'd like to say that my Father, born in China in 1961, strongly doubts that China will become a democratic country anytime soon. Certainly not by 2020.

**Luke Gu** · 26 Sep 09,, 06:49

But I'd like to say that my Father, born in China in 1961, strongly doubts that China will become a democratic country anytime soon. Certainly not by 2020.

So do I。But many things are worth to making an attempt。

**~~outcast~~** · 26 Sep 09,, 10:34

but not as free as we where 100, 200 years ago

Oh you mean when strikes were always put down violently, police corruption was rampant, and no one was really allowed to question the social heirarchy?

**Blue** · 27 Sep 09,, 03:58

Originally Posted by outcast

Oh you mean when strikes were always put down violently, police corruption was rampant, and no one was really allowed to question the social heirarchy?

You talkin bout the 1970s?

**~~outcast~~** · 29 Sep 09,, 15:31

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

You talkin bout the 1970s?

That and anytime before it. Media at the time was also heavily censored, just look up the Smothers Brothers to see what kind they were dealing with. It didn't become appearent until the 70's just how restricted we were because no one tried to change that much.

EDIT: Oh and I'll throw in this quick list of strike busting where the US Army was brought in to crush it. Union busting at the time was standard procedure, and often it took the form of physical assaults. All of that because factory workers and miners wanted to change to appalling working conditions. If any of that happened today in some other country the human rights guys would be screaming bloody murder.

**astralis** · 29 Sep 09,, 17:07

7th,

I beg to differ. Yes we are freer than the rest of the world, but not as free as we where 100, 200 years ago. And I am not speaking of racism and the old standards. I'm talking about the sheer number of laws governing ever more facets of our society. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, gun laws, tax laws, etc. So many restrictions placed on so much.

sorry, what you're saying is "the US of 100-200 years ago would be a great place if we discount rampant racism, sexism, political suppression, and aristocracy..."

all of these laws you're talking about are general "PC" laws-- annoying but nothing on the same par as the numerous racist, sexist LEGAL restrictions that were placed on society back then.

50 years ago, if you were not a wealthy, preferably landed, WASP it was difficult to hold power. 100 years ago, impossible. 150 years, anyone but a landed WASP didn't even have political rights. hell, as recently as 40 years ago the government could tell you who you could/could not marry.

even our founding fathers tried to suppress political freedom and promote censorship. balanced against that, i can live with seat belt laws

**Blue** · 29 Sep 09,, 19:33

Originally Posted by astralis

sorry, what you're saying is "the US of 100-200 years ago would be a great place if we discount rampant racism, sexism, political suppression, and aristocracy..."

So we've had more suppression piled on, but really, what has changed with respect to those three things. It all the same stuff, just a different day. we still have all the above plus more.

**astralis** · 29 Sep 09,, 20:36

7th,

So we've had more suppression piled on, but really, what has changed with respect to those three things. It all the same stuff, just a different day. we still have all the above plus more.

the most important difference is that it is no longer codified and is actually illegal now. societal change is always hard, but changing the law helps. like i said, i'll take the seatbelt and smoking restrictions over truly gross personal freedom violations like who i can marry, where i can work, or where i can just hang out (parks or jobs with the sign: "no irish/chinese need apply/enter").

the problem with the "good ol' days" argument is that everyone always remembers the good, and forget the bad. minorities-- especially the more successful members-- tend to remember the bad longer.

**Blue** · 30 Sep 09,, 03:20

Originally Posted by astralis

the most important difference is that it is no longer codified and is actually illegal now. societal change is always hard, but changing the law helps. like i said, i'll take the seatbelt and smoking restrictions over truly gross personal freedom violations like who i can marry, where i can work, or where i can just hang out (parks or jobs with the sign: "no irish/chinese need apply/enter").

the problem with the "good ol' days" argument is that everyone always remembers the good, and forget the bad. minorities-- especially the more successful members-- tend to remember the bad longer.

But you are not comparing apples to apples! Civil rights, civil liberties and traffic safety laws are entirely different things. Laws, for whatever reason you pick, can very easily spill over into abusing rights and personal freedoms. How do you think MLK would feel if we compared civil rights to seatbelt laws? I will tell you right now AND research it further if necessary(because I already have over the past 30 years) MLK didn't like much of any laws and his problem was that equal rights for races had to be legislated!?

He had a higher calling than congress.

**astralis** · 30 Sep 09,, 04:08

7th,

But you are not comparing apples to apples! Civil rights, civil liberties and traffic safety laws are entirely different things. Laws, for whatever reason you pick, can very easily spill over into abusing rights and personal freedoms

then i'm not sure what you want to compare-- the trivial laws of a hundred years ago to the trivial laws of today?

what i'm saying is that our rights were considerably more restricted 50 years ago, and a LOT more restricted 100 years ago. you're telling me the opposite, that we're going downhill.

so, show me where we were so much more free in the past compared to today.

**Blue** · 30 Sep 09,, 04:28

Originally Posted by astralis

then i'm not sure what you want to compare-- the trivial laws of a hundred years ago to the trivial laws of today?

Basic freedoms.

what i'm saying is that our rights were considerably more restricted 50 years ago, and a LOT more restricted 100 years ago. you're telling me the opposite, that we're going downhill.

I'm white. MY rights were not restricted 100 years ago.

so, show me where we were so much more free in the past compared to today.

In the past, I would have been. Now that we are equal, someone still wants to impose thier power, its just that the lines are not drawn by race anymore. Its class. Common Americans are too stupid to know what is good for them. Just ask any capitol hill Democrat!

When we all became "equal". Elites still had to find someone to lord over. That's ALL of us now, Brother!