Swastikas and Germany in the modern day...

[Skybird]

BTW, I disagree with the quote'S prediction as you give it. Where it says

"with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

I would say differently:

"with the result freedom and wealth get eroded because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always be followed by growing sanctions by the government against the citizens, enforcing growing expropriation, devaluation of currency, growing totalitarianism to keep in control, and a socialist basic order and mass impoverishment as the final result."

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

On the declaration of human and civil rights, I thought the context in which I wqrote it made it clear that I meant the series of French constitutions there have been. The declaration preceded them all. It was written in 1798, the first French constitution is from 1791.

????

Originally Posted by Skybird

It's not a competetion running for who had the first written document, however.

Then get to the point, pal. Because you need to decide which came first, the French or the American constitution. I'm confused as to what you think at this moment.

[Skybird]

For the third time now: the philosophical-idealistic basis and the resulting cultural climate that allowed the thinking behind the constitutions, may it be the American one or the French declaration of human and civil rights, precedes the writing of said documents, and is not an original American quality, but has been envisioned and prepared by French front thinkers, and probably some other influential guys as well. You are under the - most likely wrong - impression that whoever wrote a constitution first, was necessarily the one inventing all by himself the idealistic basis on which that thinking based. And that is very unreasonable to assume, not just in this example, but in history in general. No thinking falls just out of the blue sky, but has a history leading to it. The situation in early America allowed to pick up these early ideas and to lead them further, benefiting from the lack of European-wide suppression of certain thoughts. That does not change the fact that the ideas and ideals nevertheless had started to find their way into some thinkers mind. And that goes beyond just mere idealism, but also includes economic and financial concepts developed by some Belgian and French that influenced the thinking of some of the founding fathers as well.

It is absurd to assume that any place there is is isolated from the rest of the world and breeds all stuff happening there all by itself. History and tradition never just pops up surprisingly and out of the blue.

That denies maybe some beloved unique feature of some Americans' self-description, nevertheless I'm stating the obvious only. Not to mention that the concept of democracy precedes French and American constitutions by over two thousand years and more anyway. And for the most of that time, it had a very low reputation. The modern praise for it is hardly older than just one century. And to me, it is not only a young but also a highly questionable concept that threatens to destroy right those achievements we usually attribute to it - for reasons wiser minds have already foreseen two or three millenia before. Also, the material wealth of Western nations is not due to democracy, but capitalism and trade. Capitalism is not successful due to democracy ruling, but right because it is so strong a power and attractive for free people that it even works when being massively hindered, defamed and exploited by democracy.

When that no longer is the case and "democracy" has successfully gagged even the last capitalist influence and reason - then the transformation into totalitarian socialism is completed.

Straying off a bit here, now compare the state of things and the highly visible trends in the US, its clear shifting towards the European vision of state socialism, consider the drowning in debts and devaluation of money and the follow-up expropriation that means, consider the massive demographic and ethnic changes in population satructure and the different demands and goials directed at polticians who want to get elected - and then anybody seriously tell me that that is just a minor slip and does not mean a major, huge gap between the US how it is, and the ideas how it hopefully would be as expressed in those old historic documents.

The EU violates and betrays its own laws and treaties, and its people. German parliament and government betrays and violates demands of our laws and the Basic Law. Constitutional organs are corrupted by now and all are brought into line to help in that abuse. And I cannot see that things are running differently in the US: the same betrayal, the same abuse and corruption.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I have turned into a zero state or zero government guy, as should have become clear over the past months and years...

I do not trust politicians and states, nor symbols or paroles, and my state of alertness is the higher the greater the group is by which it is triggered. Crowds of people are nothing but herds of cattle, easy to be led around. Also, to me, human intelligence and its resulting behavior and decision-making, and group size, are inversely proportional. By my life experience so far, I have no reason to step away from that assessment.

I understand that, and even your reasoning. I have myself said that I believe no government is the best government, and the best government is no government. Of course that's also impossible, as people will always want to form a government in order to pass laws to protect themselves from each other.

On quotes...it becomes difficult to not realise what may or may not be historically original.

Quite true. I use unproven quotes in my sig all the time. On the other hand I did qualify my statement with "if you're going to use the quote to support an argument", and I stand by that. You used first "one of the early US presidents" and then Jefferson and Franklin, seemingly for the purpose of showing that our Founding Fathers agree with you. The fact that they didn't say that undercuts you argument. Perhaps in this case "Anonymous" might have been better.

[Skybird]

I saw no reason to use "Anonymous" when I see it linked to one and the same name all the time, in books and on webpages - and many of them. The term "the founding fathers" I only use because I notoriously forget what quote is attributed to whom, and there are so many quotes - artificial ones or original ones - that are worth to be known, so when I give such a quote from early presidents or founding fathers I often just say it is by "one of those boys from that gang". Understand it as pragmatism, please, no foul intention there.

I assume that such quotes got "modernised" in an act of creative freedom by somebody. In case of the Frnaklin quote, that is obvious, your version is much longer and sounds old-fashioned than n the version I gave. The Jefferson quote is quite popular and I have it in two other books as well, I also found it in the past in two German blogs , also in quote collection websites. I assume there is something that was said by the man that also served as an original on which this "modernised" quote is basing on. My knowedge on Jefferson is in no way complete, but the summarised biography I have read gives me the impression of a man who nevertheless could very well have said it the way it usually gets quoted.

Anyhow, lets move on.

[Sailor Steve]

I assume the quotes, like many, were not said by the people they are attributed to, but falsely claimed by someone somewhere to give weight to an argument, and then embraced by everybody who liked the quotes and wanted to believe them. I say nothing about Jimbuna's many Churchill "quotes" in the Favorite Quotes thread, but you can bet that if he used one of them to prove a point I'd be all over him too.

Meanwhile, I apologize for diverting from your original point, which is the failure of Democracy. I disagree with you, but it's a good point of discussion.

[areo16]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That denies maybe some beloved unique feature of some Americans' self-description, nevertheless I'm stating the obvious only.

You are stating the obvious. This still does not mean the US Constitution is not unique, as you stated earlier. It is unique.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I assume the quotes, like many, were not said by the people they are attributed to, but falsely claimed by someone somewhere to give weight to an argument, and then embraced by everybody who liked the quotes and wanted to believe them. I say nothing about Jimbuna's many Churchill "quotes" in the Favorite Quotes thread, but you can bet that if he used one of them to prove a point I'd be all over him too.

Meanwhile, I apologize for diverting from your original point, which is the failure of Democracy. I disagree with you, but it's a good point of discussion.

Oi! Keep me out of this bun fight, I much prefer pies

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by areo16

You are stating the obvious. This still does not mean the US Constitution is not unique, as you stated earlier. It is unique.

You remind me of a dog chasing its tail and then wanting to tell me it were running down a straight line.

If after I think three explanations what I am about and three efforts to point out that the thinking in the constitution did not just fell out of the blue sky, you still have not understood me, then a fourth time obviously promises to be in vein.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Meanwhile, I apologize for diverting from your original point, which is the failure of Democracy.

No need to, really.

[Betonov]

Democracy has just one fault.
Voters prefer bling to brain.
Garmin M.K. Betonov



In a thread this long, of course I'll interfere

[Penguin]

Getting back to the original question:

Germans think the sight of a Swastika will cause a stiff right arm - just as Americans think the sight of a nipple will make their kids turn blind.
Penguin von Wiseguy

[Catfish]

^ Seems real.




I wonder how americans reproduce, in any american films they keep on their underwear or more - or is it true a girl can get pregnant by kissing ?

[Betonov]

Catfish, I see you never watch HBO

[Subnuts]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Catfish, I see you never watch HBO

Still trying to figure out how, after three seasons of Game of Thrones, not a single female character has managed to get pregnant, and bastard children are still a huge deal.