Negatory

Agree wholeheartedly, but how do you quantify that? Most economic reports, when it comes to journalism, over the last few years have been that stock market going up = free market working well, when that's not necessarily true.

The S&P 500 is also nearly at all time highs, so i don’t get your point about the DJIA. Almost every index you look at domestically is doing well. With enough quantitative easing (expected to be up to $5T dollars this year, already at 2-3), you can prop up anything. Our balance sheet at the end of the year could be over $10T. YGBSM. Obama did it. Trump is doing it. But, the truth is, right now, we are in no place to do that. Our interest rates are almost 0. And most of that is due to not taking the chance to tighten when the economy was actually “doing well. There has been no meaningful QT at any point where it would have worked. Its analogous to the airlines doing massive stock buybacks to inflate their prices. You can’t take on debt forever to make it look like the economy is doing well. And, worse, QE disproportionately benefits stockholders over the rest of society. More meaningful improvement would be increasing median family wages adjusted for purchasing power. Something that no one has done in 40 years.

Highest unemployment rate in recent history and stock prices are hitting records. Not a great indicator.

Was with you til this. The DJIA only reflects a small minority of the economy and doesn’t relate to how the majority of people are actually doing.

Repeating, of course.

Discuss. Rabble rabble constitution rabble rabble. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273?s=20

That’s one way to look at it. I’m sure both sides see it that way to a large extent. I’m sure it’s been that way for many many elections. It’s one of the large problems with the two party “lesser of two evils” election system we have. Now you don’t have to backup what policies you stand for - you can just say what you don’t want and hope it turns out okay.

Japan is a valid example and a valid post, but I believe that it's pointless to debate you any longer. There are clear cut counterexamples to your poorly written first point. We're not engaging in academic thought anymore if you refuse to acknowledge that. And to your point that "Who gets to decide? The government. It ain’t free bubba." - The United States of America has had plenty of cases where freedom of speech wasn't just a clearcut happyland world that you make it out to be. Who gets to decide in the end? Oh, the government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment I'm done playing 6 dimensional chess inside of your brain.

Also, I'm not the one with burden of proof. All of this conversation has been in response to an outlandish claim by a member of this forum when he said "An entitlement only afforded to you in the US. Free speech isn’t legal anywhere else in the world." The greatest thing about a positive claim is that, to disprove it, you only need one example as a counterpoint. And since semantics arguments are accepted here (apparently) and you made an extremely over-extended claim that the entitlement to free speech is literally ONLY afforded to you in the US and only legal in the US, I present one counterpoint (enjoy): "The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 5: Freedom of expression. (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources." This example both proves that the US is not the only place in the world where freedom of speech is afforded to you, and, furthermore, shows that free speech is legal somewhere else in the world. Boom, both parts of your argument are done, gottem. This way of arguing is f#$@ing stupid. Try to understand my point and not pick apart my words. I'll do the same for you. I understand, for example, that your point was that America's level of freedom of speech is unparalleled. I agree that, when it comes to strict censoring, you're correct. You can say more here in America than probably anywhere else in the world. But when it comes to talking about most things in common discourse/debate (politics, viewpoints, government criticism), you get the same protections across many first world countries.

It's not blame shifting, @Guardian, it's pointing out double-standards. Don't misconstrue the argument.

Mark it off for the technicality here, congrats. Even though no one in this thread would argue with the fact that in an actual fire, no shit, you can say there is a fire. Guardian even said this is "the only place in the world where it is legal to speak your mind and as long as you aren’t yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," which is totally 100% technically incorrect by your logic, although I'm pretty sure you understood his point. The point is that that America's freedom of speech is almost indistinguishable from many other nations'.

I agree, everyone should not have equality of outcome, they should have equality of opportunity. All men are created equal. Which is why I’m certain you support a 100% redistributed inheritance and death tax, right? (I’m actually sure you don’t, and I’ve never understood this stance).

I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree on many points, thanks for the opinions.

Am I in a never ending semantics argument? Is this about can vs may? The courts ruled your first amendment rights don’t apply when there is a “clear and present danger.” “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Also, I'll give it to you that you never said explicitly that what I said was only allowable in America. Although I still don't understand why you pointed it out other than to implicitly hint that I wouldn't be able to share my viewpoint unless I was here. Because in reality, what I said was perfectly allowable in the vast majority of countries, which is why your comment was so out of place and received multiple "why you saying this?" responses from not just myself.

And talking condescendingly to someone about how they should read books and take classes to learn how to focus their thoughts is a typical strategy to belittle and ignore someone's points (an ad hominem attack) when you aren't hitting the substantive parts of the argument. You are now just attacking me, not my argument. Focus.

Other countries have freedom of speech. Your argument is that America has the only real freedom of speech because other countries prohibit some things like hate speech. Well, as you said, you can't say fire in a crowded movie theater, so I guess by your logic, no one has true freedom of speech. Focus.

I read about it and I agree. Democrats are shameful in this case.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. The second paragraph, in my opinion, tries to make a non-partisan issue partisan and cast blame. Crime and Punishment and the protection and the over-empowering of the criminal justice system/police in the US is just as much Ronald Reagan’s fault as it is Bill Clinton’s (and those that support them).

You aren’t addressing my point because I was being sarcastic? I could have said literally everything I said in this forum in almost every first world nation on this planet and suffered no potential consequences. Freedom of speech and political opinion is protected in almost every comparable nation to a HUGE extent. The main thing that separates the US is that hate speech and intentionally inflammatory words are also protected here.... which I honestly don’t think I’ve ever taken advantage of. I do not see the benefit of US freedom of speech vs European freedom of speech in nearly all reasonable discourse. If you can please explain something that I said that would have gotten me in trouble, I would appreciate it (you already implied America is the only place that would let me talk like this). Because there is literally nothing. Also, the press freedom rankings are not useless or a deflection. They serve the point to prove that just because America has a bill of rights and constitution that says something is free doesn’t mean the societal model automatically makes it happen or matter. I.e. we espouse freedom of the press as one of our societal rights and then do a bad job of it. Cheers.

I guess I’m lucky to be in the US, because it allows me to spout my totally socialist viewpoints unabashedly. Whereas if I was in any other country I would be liable to be arrested or fined immediately. Obvious sarcasm if not noted. On another note, did you hear about the Press Freedom Rankings? I hear we are working our way up there, hopefully one day we’ll be as free as all those other first world countries! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country Arbitrary buzzwords about freedom are not helpful, it comes across as thinly veiled threats about how I’m lucky to even get to talk.

Brother, they are held accountable morally, whether you like it or not. Maybe not in a court of law, but you surely understand that really, when it comes down to it, right and wrong is defined by humanity - not by the US legal system. Maybe it’s too philosophical, but your actions actually are judged not just on legality, just as I’m judging the police not just on legality. E.g. you go cheat on your wife, I’ll judge you for it even though it’s not illegal. With that being said, I believe the US legal system gets it mostly right, but my point is that when 50 cops resign from the Buffalo police department after cracking open the skull of a senior citizen because they were mad that they got “in trouble,” it’s not illegal. But it’s pathetic. And they are and should be judged for it. Cheers, friend.

Although, to be clear, there are innumerable accounts of illegal and unlawful abuses of power and authority that have been demonstrated over the last few months.

I as a human am entitled to say that I believe something is wrong. An argument that it is legal is a non-sequitur and not the point.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States Morality vs legality. As an example, in many US states, the police can permanently seize your assets without charging you with a crime. I would argue that shouldn’t happen. It’s never as clear cut as “the law says so,” and just because laws have loopholes and ways you can take advantage of them shouldnt give carte blanche authority for you, or me, or police to do so. Cheers.