Originally posted by amannionI agree completely. So many of us praise our country for its freedom of expression with one hand while trying to crush dissent with the other. What's the good of freedom if you're not allowed to use it?
What is it with you yanks and your patriotism?
I mean, I'm all for love of country and everything (I served in my country's armed forces), but not at the expense of free speech and freedom to express one's own opinions.
If someone says they hate my country or whatever, I may well disagree, but why would I want to ship them away.
It's diversity of opinions and views that create a rich and vibrant culture ...
As for Mr. Wright, I wouldn't vote for him, but HE's not the one running for president! How quickly the media forget that when they can smell a scandal.
Originally posted by bjohnson407It's hard to blame them really, with the drawn out process you have for choosing your political candidates. They've got to talk about something I guess ...
I agree completely. So many of us praise our country for its freedom of expression with one hand while trying to crush dissent with the other. What's the good of freedom if you're not allowed to use it?
As for Mr. Wright, I wouldn't vote for him, but HE's not the one running for president! How quickly the media forget that when they can smell a scandal.
Much easier to use a process like ours. The party decides their candidates however they damn well like. The people vote for them in the general election - only once. Saves a lot of hassle - and a lot of money.
I have to agree, his pastor speaking is not him speaking.
I don't even want to run down his pastor, I have seen small bites of
Rep speaches taken out of context to make them sound bad, so I
do not know what points he was really making in context. I have only
heard small clips of his sermon and it was not very up lifting, but like
I said, I did get to hear it in context. I'm not sure where his sermon
came from, who cleaned it up for prime time TV, Clinton backers, or
just your normal every day TV media?
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionI have seen many different political systems, and what I have come to learn is that although the vote is focused on and widely praised as the pillar of democracy, it is not. Most elections in most countries are little more than a choice between two rather undesirable candidates that were picked out by a relatively small group of people for reasons other than good leadership ability in the candidates.
It's hard to blame them really, with the drawn out process you have for choosing your political candidates. They've got to talk about something I guess ...
Much easier to use a process like ours. The party decides their candidates however they damn well like. The people vote for them in the general election - only once. Saves a lot of hassle - and a lot of money.
What really marks a good democracy is what comes after the election. In most parts of Africa, it is typical for a president to say "I have the mandate of the people to do what I want".
In Africa, we elect our leaders 'into power'. In more democratic nations they elect their leaders 'into office.'
A typical African leader rules the country - he doesn't simply do a job that he is employed to do.
The key difference is the amount of control people have over a leaders actions once he is elected.
I get the feeling that the British prime minister has less power in his country than the US president does in his. In my opinion that makes Britain more democratic.