I guess, but I’d still say that a ban on same sex marriage is still better than, say, the rights denied to women in some middle eastern countries. You know, like the right to trial in a rape case.
I totally agree that bans on marriage are terrible, but the ruler I was looking for is are we truly so much worse off than everyone else now, or are we still doing pretty well, and when all things are totaled could we still be doing better. I can accept either answer without argument, I would just like facts is all. The only reason I even bring it up is that we seem to focus a lot on the things in this country that are denied to us, and are allowed elsewhere, and then say “they are more free.” But then if you do a rigorous comparison, it turns out that that’s the only thing they have on us. The fact that I can’t come up with a single example off of the top of my head might be an indication of the answers I will get, but still I’d just like some facts, if they exist.
Aside from no gay marriage, I look down across the border and see:
Civil rights: a grossly disproportionally high incarceration rate particularly with regard to a specific minority
Personal rights: a death penalty
Public safety: a grossly disportionate murder rate.
Health: a shorter lifespan.
Government: head of state and administration not responsible (please learn what the technical term “responsible government” means before commenting on this).
Education: avoidance of evolution
Religion: increasingly diminished separation of church and state
And most importantly with respect to the issue of “leader of the free world”, when the USA set off to invade Iraq against the wishes of most developed nations and against the wishes of the UN, it signaled a major change in its foreign policy. Instead of working within the international community, and holding to international law, as it did during the post-war Eisenhower administration, it now pays little regard to the international community and international law. The USA is now a rogue state, and an exceptionally dangerous one at that given its massive military and its propensity to invade other nations.
I’m not sure I see your point, or even agree with your distillation.
Tell me, did you investigate all the linked references, or is your phrase “half the time” an arbitrary figure based solely on rhetorical profiteering?
Regardless, I think it’s been made clear that a great many people outside the United States use Leader of the Free World in all sincerity when either referring to my nation or my president. Heck, even Scots do it. And quite a bit, actually.
By your criteria, just one newspaper, The Scotsman, has “non-sarcastically” used this phrase 10 times in 2004. Here’s a convenient instance:
Which isn’t even close to your original question. Yes most democratic industrial countries have a broad number of civil rights and protections roughly comparable American ones. American history has shown (Japanese internment), a written constitution does not necessarily prevent abuses. If you think otherwise, grab some facts and let’s start a new thread. Hate laws in Canada may not be your best bet, check a thread from 6 months ago I think.
Yeah, I totally know that. I just couldn’t come up with an example, so I used that one to simply illustrate my point. And as I said, it’s not that I think otherwise, it’s that I haven’t given it any thought until now and wanted some help. I will be doing some reading, and maybe we can start another thread.