[zerospinboson]

Our constitution explicitly forbids a perpetual copyright. This was part of it from day one. So it doesn't matter what our Congress passes, it would be turned over as unconstitutional.

*shrug*. So they make it a 500 year term. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But fascism was elected in Italy and Germany. In Great Britain, they did a TV show in the 1960's, The Prisoner, about a man under continuous survellance, with the premise that such was a bad thing. Now most of London is under continuous survellance (be seein' ya!). My point is that there is no inherent cultural <you can't do that, no matter who you are> in European viewpoint of government. Only those of the government you elected at the time, which could be swapped out at any time you please for another government that could do whatever it was elected to do, without limit, that it's electorate felt needed to be done.

I see. So all the NSA wiretapping, the increased push for logging travel movement (and 10 year retention), the taking fingerprints of every visitor the USA, and the patriot acts are all good, but "CCTVs are what orwell is made of"? I really haven't the faintest what you're hinting at by saying that "fascism was elected" in Europe, though. Popular support is easily had. Just look at the US. Communism is on the rise, so what do you do?
You quickly invent a shooting at a boat incident in order to be allowed to invade Vietnam, because you're "afraid of the takeover of Asia by communism".
Later, after decades of interventionist US policy, which results in resentment especially in the ME, 9/11 happens, so you invade two oil-rich countries and bomb a few others; here, in London: the Underground is attacked, in Madrid the trains are bombed, in Ireland you have decades of IRA and basque separatist/religious violence happen; and yet all without silly wars.

Even if that was to scrap all freedom or the market economy.

Yes, we're just crypto-communists waiting to come out of the closet, whereas protectionism (and bailouts?) never happen in the US. (or was it that these actions are condoned by the part of the electorate you don't approve of, and are as such unamerican?)

I'm not saying that that choice is currently in the cards, but there's no cultural worldview saying that to do so is inherently evil. the people in power do what they have been granted power to do, just like an absolute monarch...

Right. And McCarthyism didn't happen in the US, because the population would never approve of that. Nor the past 8 years of scaremongering leading to lots of civil rights going *poof*. And you're now saying that GW didn't do all of that because "he could", ("I'm the decider") he only did what the populace asked? i.e., what is the difference you're trying to point me towards? That abuse of power, and collusion between elected officials and megacorporations only happens in Europe?
Where is the American "you can't do that" in all of this?

Harry, Zerospinboson, my statement is an obvious burr under your saddle. But your responses acutally back up my thesis. Let me rephrase -
What is the inherent limit that a government cannot do, if elected, in Europe

Yes, because you're saying things that are so slanted my chair fell over.
Because I say that you're talking bullshit, I'm proving the fact that we have absolute government here? There must've been one heck of a premise I'm missing somewhere.
What does "inherent limit that a government cannot do" mean?
Are you talking about some sort of legal thing?
Because, like I said in the part you didn't quote, we *do* have constitutions here too. Got them some time ago, too. Furthermore, have you heard of constitutional amendments? Anything can be done just as easily in the US via those as they can be here. Just have two subsequent governments that can get a 66% vote and you're there. There is no such thing as "something nobody can do".
Extraordinary rendition, "enhanced interrogations", and lots of other neat words invented after 9/11."enemy combatants" were invented so as to be able to ignore the geneva conventions, they didn't get the right to a fair trial because they weren't "american citizens" (nor did some bearded americans receive the right to Habeas Corpus), and another bunch were speedily hidden in prisons, where they also couldn't call their lawyer.

Or are you talking about the "moral fibre" of americans, which they have in spades, whereas we have none? Because where, exactly, is the "thing that could never happen here", whereas it "easily could" in sheep-ly Europe?
Because that's what you seem to be implying here, and that's what I was referring to when I said you were spouting bullshit. That impolite fiction that "some things would never happen here" (whereas elsewhere, where governments are absolute), and especially that that is all made possible because you rightly distrust your government, whereas we are so stupid as to not to do so.
And yes, that to me seems as good a reason as any to experience a "burr" under my saddle. The overconfidence is rather distasteful to me.