Canada, what’s up?

[Stumpy 256]

41 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You don't see religious freedom and the contents of your beloved Bill of Rights as liberal?

"Founded on" is true, "world leader in" - not so much. Increasingly tending back towards a middle eastern style theocracy, at least in some areas.

Doubtless that will get some people upset, but look at some of the legislation being proposed/ pushed through/ approved in some places for the crime of allowing someone to be transgender - or some of the comments by sitting senators and members of congress re. repealing the ability for interracial marriage, or banning books..... the list goes on.

[BIGUN 1,049]

14 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

"Founded on" is true, "world leader in" - not so much. Increasingly tending back towards a middle eastern style theocracy, at least in some areas.

Doubtless that will get some people upset, but look at some of the legislation being proposed/ pushed through/ approved in some places for the crime of allowing someone to be transgender - or some of the comments by sitting senators and members of congress re. repealing the ability for interracial marriage, or banning books..... the list goes on.

To answer Ken's question, [at that time] they were federalists + libertarian.

Your response is more modern republicanism and liberalism. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Your response is more modern republicanism and liberalism. 

The foundation of liberalism is democracy. The USA had a close call recently with its democracy being threatened. Enough Rs refused to succumb, but it was uncomfortably close. As long as leaders are chosen by election and elections are true opportunities to "throw the bums out" liberalism will thrive because it is what the people want everywhere. There is far more to liberalism than social policy and wealth distribution although those are the aspects of it that conservatives oppose. The term "liberal democracy" does not necessarily mean governed by liberals. It means dictators will not be tolerated.

 

There are no true democracies that are not liberal, even when a more conservative party holds power.

Edited March 28, 2022 by gowlerk

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

14 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You know, you really don't have to feel guilty about being American or to fit in with the liberal crowd. 

Wow. Project much?

I have no 'guilt' about what our country has done in the past. Or about what it does now or in the future.
I'm not in charge. And while my vote may (or may not) be a very, very, very small factor in putting the ones who make those decisions in power, I'm not going to feel guilty about, say, voting for GWB.

That doesn't change the fact that America has done some REALLY fucked up shit in the past. 
And that many Americans refuse to admit it.

For example, the only people who don't think the Nazi Holocaust was a horrible thing are Nazis and anti-semites (often, but not always the same thing).
But the genocide inflicted on the native population from the time the Pilgrims landed until about now is at least an order of magnitude worse in terms of direct and indirect deaths.
But calling Columbus a genocidal maniac who didn't even know where he was is "anti-American".
During the BLM protests last year, it was pointed out that "America is so racist that pointing out racism is considered by many to be un-American".

The countries where it was 'in America's national interests' to install and defend the most horrible dictators possible. Iran, Cuba, Iraq (we supported Saddam Hussein back in the 80s), most of Central & South America, that list is long. The term 'banana republic' was coined because the US installed dictators in Honduras to make sure Dole could get cheap product.
We claim to be the 'beacon of democracy' and to support freedom around the world.
The reality is a LOT different.

Again, I'm not feeling guilty about any of this. 

But I don't pretend it doesn't exist and claim that the country is where it is economically and politically because of "American Exceptionalism". 

10 hours ago, gowlerk said:

... I've got news for you. America was founded on liberalism and is the world leader of liberalism. Hard for some to believe and even harder for some to stomach.

 

10 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You are so wrong on this point.

Again wow.

Did you just sleep through history class back in high school?

When the country was founded, and the Declaration of Independence was written, the idea that certain people were superior to others simply because of the vagina they popped out of was pretty standard.
The concept that 'all men are created equal' (flawed because it meant 'white men who owned property) was not just 'liberal', it was revolutionary.
The concept that laws should apply to all men (again, white men), that the 'unwashed masses' had actual rights, the rest of the basic democratic principles the founders put in place was head and shoulders above how the rest of the world operated. 

Funny how much of the world has followed that lead and adopted many (not all) of the basic principles.
They are often referred to as 'liberal democracies'.

Wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

It doesn't mean 'left wing'.

 

If you want a good example of what the opposite looks like, look at the Confederacy.
The "Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander Stephens is interesting (note: I only learned about this fairly recently). He claimed that the founding fathers got it wrong, that all men are NOT created equal and that white men should own black men.

[billvon 2,380]

11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You are so wrong on this point.

He's right.  A lot of conservatives (not you) have used "liberal" as a curse word for so long that they have forgotten its original meaning.  It means a political philosophy based on:

The idea that the rights of the individual are paramount
The idea that the government derives its power from the consent of those it governs
Equality before the law
Private ownership of property, and the right to maintain that ownership 
A secular, rather than religious, government
A primarily consumer driven market economy
Rule of law
Freedom of speech, religion, and press

It is fairly recent; the first big fight over it happened in 1688 when the British monarchy was overthrown and replaced with a parliament-led government.  It was quickly followed by the Toleration Act allowing (some) freedom of religious worship, and the (British) Bill of Rights in 1689.  It came mostly, but not exclusively, from the West.

[BIGUN 1,049]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

It means a political philosophy based on:

This all started around 1970 with the newly formed libertarian party. Some Phd's got together and began "rewriting history." Since then, there's been about ten new definitions added to political views.

Each one of these new "ten" had similar principles with our forefathers and began pointing at them saying, "See, see, our forefathers . . . " Being left of King George doesn't make them liberals. "Classic" or otherwise.

[kallend 1,620]

13 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The concept that laws should apply to all men (again, white men), that the 'unwashed masses' had actual rights, the rest of the basic democratic principles the founders put in place was head and shoulders above how the rest of the world operated. 

 

 

The US Bill of Rights is very obviously derived from the English Bill of Rights of 1688-89.

[gowlerk 1,903]

42 minutes ago, kallend said:

The US Bill of Rights is very obviously derived from the English Bill of Rights of 1688-89.

The English Bill of Rights granted the right to bear arms for self defense. I'm not sure what happened over the years but that was slowly watered down until the situation today is that firearms are highly regulated there. The UK does not have a Constitution and it's Parliament is all powerful.There are no permanent rights there, all are subject to the will or whim of the politicians of the day. This is why libel laws are so different and the press needs to fear being sued by powerful people if they feel insulted. Overall the US system is far superior to the weak tea of the historically important but barely relevant English Bill of Rights.

Since this thread is about Canada I'll add that we also have a Bill of Rights that was ineffective and in 1985 was largely superseded by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which the courts have interpreted in ways that most would regard as quite liberal. It is part of our Constitution and difficult to amend. However it does contain a provision to allow laws to over ride it for limited but renewable periods of up to five years. Our system was clearly influenced by out desire to enjoy more of the rights found in the large neighbour to the south, but avoiding some of its pitfalls. A typical Canadian compromise. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by gowlerk