You might not have noticed, but I've tried to steer clear of debating you on this topic. The truth is that you are emotionally tied to the subject. I've seen some of the responses you have posted, and they are a bit aggressive. Nothing too drastic, but clearly emotionally motivated. It's the same reason why I don't particularly like to debate people on the topic of religion. If we engage in the topic, mark my words, it will escalate. The very things that allow me to predict the trajectory of this discussion, are the same ones I'll weaponize against you if we transition from discussion to debate. You know my stance on a debate, it's kill or be killed. I'm always down to dance when need be, but seeing as it is Christmas, we could just decide not to go down that rabbit hole.
Please, most of those rights were already established in the UK from the Glorious Revolution onwards, using principles drawn up in Magna Carta and by Henry Ireton, a prominent Parliamentarian politician in the Wars of the Four Kingdoms (known to most as the English Civil War, though it was one of many we've had). Where do you think the American rebels got those values from? The democracy we established in our constitutional monarchy avoided us going the way of the French and genociding our aristocracy, and finally put to rest the eternal struggle between premier and people to allow us to concentrate on empire-building. And now, it's not that democratic ideal we've established that is the problem, it's lefties trying to erode it.
Talking of the relationship between premier and people, you champion the US but the rights in their beloved cOnsTiTutIon are currently in the process of being similarly eroded (but for different political motives), as Julius Caesar 2.0 continues to stick all his little mates into the judiciary and the media so that he can get away with every felony under the sun without anyone being able to touch him. The man admires Putin for a reason.
You do surprise me in having such a pro-American view of things a lot of the time (except when they threatened Canada with annexation
)... you watch, America will go back to the Gilded Age under Trump... and no doubt some will say it already is with its Wild West attitude to guns, and its culture oriented around everyone scrabbling and competing with each other to be one of the haves and avoid joining the 'trailer trash'.
This is one hundred percent a strawman argument, in its absolute entirety. None of what you wrote addressed my point at all. If you recall, my statement simply read:
"
You guys in the USA have it right... first amendment." [bolded for emphasis]
My statement is in regards to the USA's first amendment free speech protection rights. I made no comment on any other aspects of the USA, as it did not pertain to the subject matter of the original video and the subsequent discussion. There are aspects of the US that are great, mediocre and poor, just like any other country, but those are different discussions and have no bearing on the topic at hand. As such, you are arguing against phantoms of your own creation. With that in mind, let's look at why your entire argument is a strawman:
Please, most of those rights were already established in the UK from the Glorious Revolution onwards, using principles drawn up in Magna Carta and by Henry Ireton, a prominent Parliamentarian politician in the Wars of the Four Kingdoms (known to most as the English Civil War, though it was one of many we've had). Where do you think the American rebels got those values from? The democracy we established in our constitutional monarchy avoided us going the way of the French and genociding our aristocracy, and finally put to rest the eternal struggle between premier and people to allow us to concentrate on empire-building. And now, it's not that democratic ideal we've established that is the problem, it's lefties trying to erode it.
American law is built upon on a foundation of British common law. I made no argument against this. In terms of a "first amendment" type legal protection, the USA has it and Britain does not (nor does Canada). Since you don't even have such a free speech protection law in place, you can't claim recognition on behalf of the UK for the US first amendment. Hence your entire passage above is irrelevant to my original statement. Strawman.
Talking of the relationship between premier and people, you champion the US but the rights in their beloved cOnsTiTutIon are currently in the process of being similarly eroded (but for different political motives), as Julius Caesar 2.0 continues to stick all his little mates into the judiciary and the media so that he can get away with every felony under the sun without anyone being able to touch him. The man admires Putin for a reason.
Even
if Trump wanted to, he can't change the First Amendment. It requires a 2/3's supermajority in congress (house and senate) to make such a change. If it ever gets brought down, then I won't "champion" the US for it. However, despite pushes against it (both today and in days gone by), it stands pretty resolute. As such, my statement holds true, and your counterargument is once again off base. Trump isn't trying to abolish the first amendment, so bringing him into the discussion is irrelevant.
You do surprise me in having such a pro-American view of things a lot of the time (except when they threatened Canada with annexation
)
Trump isn't going to annex Canada. He won't do it militarily and if it came up for Canadian citizens to vote on (which I honestly wouldn't be bothered about), the motion would fail. There isn't nearly enough support for it, not even close.
But once again, this has nothing to do with my assessment of the US first amendment.
and no doubt some will say it already is with its Wild West attitude to guns
And yet again, I made no commentary on US second amendment rights. While an interesting topic in its own right, it is irrelevant to the original statement you are commenting on.
and its culture oriented around everyone scrabbling and competing with each other to be one of the haves and avoid joining the 'trailer trash'.
My statement made no mention of income inequality. That has nothing to do with first amendment rights, so it is irrelevant (are we starting to see a trend here?).
So I end this post just as I began it... where do we go from here? You are emotionally invested in the subject and I am not. What will upset you will be a fun little exercise in shitposting for me. I have refrained from being too harsh on the UK, because to be honest, I don't really want to hurt your feelings. And let me be clear, I'm not implying any weakness on your part, but rather that you seem more patriotically motivated than I am. As stated before, I have good memories of the UK and I don't want to see it fall. Also, I don't really want to step on your patriotic love for your nation. However, if we debate the topic, then my debate win condition becomes showing just how far the UK has fallen. Trust me when I say that you probably won't enjoy the exchange. If it were someone else, I'd probably be well into my opening debate salvos, but despite our differences, I like you. No need to be at each other's throats, especially before the holidays. We can always argue about Star Wars
