What right does the U.S. have to promote their brand of "Freedom"?

Cocco posted: We may not agree with the way wars are faught and handled but as soon as we allow other countries to tell us how to do what we do then we start to lose our sovereignty, which we are TODAY fighting to keep.

Jakomo replied: Too bad the rest of us have to share the planet with you arrogant, self-important dicks, then.

I am really sorry that you have to lower yourself to name calling about our country. Sounds like you have some inner anger. Instead of sitting at your computer and lashing out at the USA go do something worthwhile for Canada.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Cocco]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Cocco]

I commend Jakomo for having read the statements of every member who contributed to this thread.

I interpreted his statement as being specific to individuals, and not a general statement about the US.

While I may not often call people arrogant, self-important dicks, it is very clear that they exist and some contribute in some way to this site. Some are American, some are not. People have called me arrogant before, it does not disturb me at all. My "arrogance" never comes from any misguided sense of nationalism or what leaders of any country do. For sure, if I lived in the United States today, I would take no pride in the achievements of the current government.

I think Jakomo calls it as he sees it, and I reckon he is doing worthwhile things in Canada and at ATS.

On nationalism, the US is doing fine at exporting brands such as Coca Cola and McDonalds and Hollywood to markets that want them. But the brand of "freedom" it promotes is becoming a less and less desirable commodity for the remaining 96% of the world's population.

Originally posted by Cocco
I think our CONSTITUTION give's us the right to promote OUR brand of Freedom.
[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Cocco]

We have the right to invaide because we say we have the right?

The argument 'Because I say so....' doesn't work very well.

I think it is quite clear that because a Canadian invented the Robertson screw/screwdriver and the Phillips screw/screwdriver was an american invention that Canadians are better inventions.
Phillips screws are nothing but a pain in the neck. Phillip didn't even invent it himself, he bought the design off some hobo.

Originally posted by Cocco
I think our CONSTITUTION give's us the right to promote OUR brand of Freedom. Granted, things are not always done right here in this country (just as others, Canada included) and there are MANY who would like to and are trying to "tear us down". But we will stand firm and keep fighting to KEEP our freedom! We may not agree with the way wars are faught and handled but as soon as we allow other countries to tell us how to do what we do then we start to lose our sovereignty, which we are TODAY fighting to keep.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Cocco]

Where exactly in the US Constitution does it say that we hav ethe right to "export" our democracy??? And why would "our" Constitution apply to people living out side the boundries of the United States???


There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse

Quote by Jakomo
That whole paragraph can be boiled down to "I honestly don't know World law". Thanks.

@Jakomo
Can you define "World Law" for me since you know exactly what it is? I will be waiting for a thorough answer from you and would just like to hear it in your own words.

Since you claim the United States is full of violent people, I had to look up crime statistics for Canada. I will also link the United States so you can do a side by side comparison and I will say that United States will have some high numbers. (Who says I am not fair, right?) That isn't what worries me though. It is the fact that our northern neighbors seem to be more violent per capita than us folks in the United States. How dare you promote your "brand" of violence right above our borders.

Now, I chose this site because all the surveys and information was collected by the United Nations, UNICRI and Transparency International. So don't rush off trying to find some information written by some sleezeball on the internet that has your slant to it, I think it is close enough as it stands. Also, you don't have to tell me, "You're spoonfed," because you used that one on another thread.

www.nationmaster.com...

www.nationmaster.com...

The United States may have the most imprisoned people in the world, but let's remember you aren't perfect, we aren't perfect and the world isn't perfect.

2 words say alot about American attitudes and exporting itself.....

Manifest Destiny.
this idea is behind much of what drives this urge.

It has to be remarked that the US is far less tolerant of minor drug crime and drugs in general than most Western nations. Being even a recreational soft drug user seems to make you an outcast in the states whereas you'd be hard pressed to find a kid in most parts of Europe that hadn't been on drugs at some stage. The fact is a lot of the time the problem is made out to be far more serious than it is. Whilst I'm not advocating the use of drugs, the damage they do to individuals and society as a whole is being constantly overstated.

"We may not agree with the way wars are faught and handled but as soon as we allow other countries to tell us how to do what we do then we start to lose our sovereignty, which we are TODAY fighting to keep."

Maybe this is part of the problem.

The US has a great deal of power without the experience to properly wield it, no wonder its currently on a bit of a rampage, its like a kid in a play ground with an Uzi. In the global scheme of things Its still a new country.

Maybe it would be sensible for it to sit back and listen to its "elders" who may have a little more experience in global dominance than it does. Just till it gets the hang of things.

Promote US Brand of Freedom

Give the Pope a medal "Great Photo Op"

WarBucks:

Can you define "World Law" for me since you know exactly what it is? I will be waiting for a thorough answer from you and would just like to hear it in your own words.

It's called International Law, and it's based on UN Charters, Human Rights and Civil and Criminal Law. Look it up yourself since you were the one using it as a defense. You said you don't know about World Law but you figure....

As an example, International Law demands that a nation needs to get UN Security Council approval before it invades another sovereign country. A Law the US flouted since Resolution 1441 didn't allow military action.

Since you claim the United States is full of violent people, I had to look up crime statistics for Canada.

Sorry, but I didn't even bother reading your links. Canada doesn't aggressively use it's military to export it's specific brand of democracy/socialism so it's really a moot point. I'm arguing that since the US exports it's brand of "freedom", then it's brand of freedom should be BETTER THAN IT IS.

How dare you promote your "brand" of violence right above our borders.

How do we promote a Canadian "brand" of violence? Hockey?

First off, my insulting comment was only directed at Cocco for what I perceived to be a totally arrogant stance on his part.

I apologize to anyone who took it as a slam towards Americans in general, and I also apologize to Cocco since he probably didn't deserve the "dick" part.


On another note, though, I really love some of these other thoughtful answers, by the way, thanks a lot everyone! I'm really just trying to get people to react, and to think and to question. I realize I'll get slammed by those that disagree, but it's heartening to see that there is some open-mindedness around.

Glad I picked up on the singular focus of your comment Jakomo. (Although your "dicks" was plural ).

I think the first amendment allows for arrogant, self-important dicks in general, so it can only be through decent upbringing and education and freedom of choice not to be a dick that you would expect to see a decline in dick count.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Glad I picked up on the singular focus of your comment Jakomo. (Although your "dicks" was plural

).

I think the first amendment allows for arrogant, self-important dicks in general, so it can only be through decent upbringing and education and freedom of choice not to be a dick that you would expect to see a decline in dick count.

I believe that there are a few extremely vainglorious dicks that use massive ideograms consistantly, who could certainly spot a kindred dick. Although unfortunately due to that same self-importance, they probably believe they are more richard than dick. Shame really.

I presented only a value-free hypotheisis on dick count reduction. It is up to each of us to determine whether or not we believe dick count should be reduced, and whether or not to exercise first amendment rights where they might apply. Those are the freedoms worth fighting for.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar I commend Jakomo

Blah... Whatever MA. Commeding someone who crosses the line in abusive rhetoric, for whatever reason, is counter productive to the intent of this website. Any topic can be discussed with civil exchanges. For members who can't, warnings and other action are in order.

Sorry GUYS.....but Cocco is a SHE not a HE so the "remark" didn't bother me at all!

Originally posted by Voice_of Doom Where exactly in the US Constitution does it say that we hav ethe right to "export" our democracy???

The version written in crayon for li'l Bush. His mandate from 48.8% of the people who voted certainly gives him the fuel to push his version on the rest of us... or so it seems.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I commend Jakomo

Blah...

Whatever MA.

Commeding someone who crosses the line in abusive rhetoric, for whatever reason, is counter productive to the intent of this website.

Hey!!!! Your editing powers will not work on me.

I said this:

"I commend Jakomo for having read the statements of every member who contributed to this thread."

As you will be well aware, I also happen to dislike abuse and insults as oft-used means of (or alternatives to) marshalling arguments.

Glad Cocco made her clarification too, especially after we deconstruct the referential qualities of her name.

It's called International Law, and it's based on UN Charters, Human Rights and Civil and Criminal Law. Look it up yourself since you were the one using it as a defense. You said you don't know about World Law but you figure....

As an example, International Law demands that a nation needs to get UN Security Council approval before it invades another sovereign country. A Law the US flouted since Resolution 1441 didn't allow military action.

You still didn't answer my question. Instead, you regurgitated information regarding the UN and told me to look it up. I just want to understand what you understand. I would really like a copy of that "Key of Knowledge" you hold.

Maybe I should be more specific. In your own words, what is "world law?" Now stop hiding behind the United Nations and give everyone reading a good answer.

Sorry, but I didn't even bother reading your links.

How do we promote a Canadian "brand" of violence? Hockey?

I guess you would have to click my links in order to find out, but since you are beyond factual information, we can leave it be. By not reading the links I posted, you really discredited yourself. Just to quote you the last time:

Quoted from Jakomo
...but don't ever rely on people reading your links.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are right Jakomo. I shouldn't expect anyone to read any links I post on the internet. I believe that came from your keyboard on another thread. You talk about open-minds, but fail to prove yours is. Insert foot in mouth, eh?

It is hard for me to post when someone contradicts themselves. This is my last one and everyone else gets the last word.