a slap on the faces of patriotic citizens

[Smartgoat]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

[BADecker]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

There is nothing wrong with holding a critical opinion about your leader. Just remember to hold enough of a critical opinion about your own ideas that you find out what the truth is.

How do you become a citizen of your country? You were probably born into it. Or you voluntarily joined your country. You can voluntarily leave your country any time. And this doesn't mean you have to leave the land you are living on. Who determines what land belongs to what country? And what authority do they have to say make this determination? It's all arbitrarily done. But if they hold you in contempt for stating that a certain piece of land that you own is your country, you might be right, but if they are stronger, you might be dead.

[Gozie51]

In a real and ideal situation, those who criticize government are suppose to be those allowed to show what they have to offer because it may seem that they have better idea. I said ideal because assuming the system is not corrupt, so that they can genuinely offer something positive to growth of the country but the problem is when such person get into power or government and meet bad system, they eat their words and start doing same thing that they have criticized or they are frustrated out of the system by those who are feeding from the corrupt system.

[BADecker]

^^^ The Dems love you.     

[Y3shot]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
 

When a leader is not doing well it is not expected for the leader to get praises , definitely citizens will criticised the leaders because it is their right to do so. Citizens must correct leaders by criticising them to do the right things, if leaders are not criticise they will do what ever they want to do. Their is  no part in the world that  leaders are not criticise,  this is done for them to serve citizens,  to do right things why they were voted for the position they have.

[Gyfts]

If the constituency isn't criticizing the leader, there's probably something wrong. At any time there exists, at least, some level of the population dissatisfied with the state of affairs. And these people tend to yell the loudest, even when being in the minority unfortunately. But that's what democracy allows, for good reason.

[Abu-Naim]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

Since democracy is the rule of the people, it has opened our eyes and minds, so we will share our thoughts.

Being a leader requires a lot of effort and dedication, which some leaders are not willing to give. Some leaders are only there for their own self-serving purposes and will simply act in the way they like without regard to the consequences.

Since it is a democratic administration, we can criticize it and demand improvements if we find anything wrong.

[BADecker]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

Since democracy is the rule of the people, it has opened our eyes and minds, so we will share our thoughts.

Being a leader requires a lot of effort and dedication, which some leaders are not willing to give. Some leaders are only there for their own self-serving purposes and will simply act in the way they like without regard to the consequences.

Since it is a democratic administration, we can criticize it and demand improvements if we find anything wrong.

Democracy simply is NOT the rule of the people. When will anybody begin to understand this? Democracy is simply a different form of dictatorship. Here is how it works in short fashion.

In a Democracy, some majority of the people elect their favorite government leaders into office. These leaders might do a few things that the majority wanted them to do. They might even do some things that the MINORITY wanted them to do. Then they do whatever they want... often against both, the majority and the minority. DICTATORSHIP!

A truly right form of government is one where the leaders only do things that don't harm the people. And it is one that a real live 'people' is only attacked by government for literally harming another real live 'people' or damaging his property... or by literal threat that is directed against another real live 'people'.

On top of this, any accusation against a 'people' is adjudicated by a 12-'people' jury of his peers. Any government official acting outside of the way the government legally and lawfully says that they must act, is acting personally, not in his government capacity. He can be attacked as a 'people' and brought to court as a 'people', not as the government official.

I say 'people' above. A person is a name on a document in US law. It might be connected to a man/woman of similar name. A 'people' is a man/woman adult.

Get this stuff into your head. You want a Republic, where any of the laws that government makes can be overruled by the people... a 12-'people' jury. You won't want a Democracy unless you want a dictatorship.

[Hispo]

Ironically, This reminds me some occasions I had the chance to talk to people from the United States, relatively young people who told me than their country is a mess and they do not like it.

There was one who literally told me that USA was as bad as Iran, or something like it, I manage her to retract that statement by offering my personal perspective but still thought USA was really bad.

It is interesting how people from countries which are assumed to be rich can badmouth their own motherland, while at the same time there are waves of people trying to move there both legally and illegally.

[purinZ14]

Are you talking about politicians who “serve” the country but are really corrupt? When you serve the country, you’re not serving the government but rather the people of your country. At least that’s how it should be. Remember that there are a lot of unfortunate countries out there who aren’t even meeting the basic needs of a lot of their citizens so if they say they regret being a citizen of that country then that makes sense. They might genuinely want better for themselves as well as for others. I see democracy as a privilege that we have to make use of when given. The government exists for the sole purpose of protecting and serving its citizens. If the appointed leaders aren’t fit for the job anymore then the citizens can and should criticize them.

[Dunamisx]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.

Most of often say things we will not be able to tolerate, if you should be in a leadership position, can we accept such to be happening under our leadership, can we condole public criticism or we will be the one to make law against public hate speech and go against activism, democracy governance is not a military kind of rule the people have no choice than to comply with the directives from the central authorities, in democracy, everyone has the right to choose the leader they want, express their interest and show concern with the way they were being governed.

[sunsilk]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.

I have seen a lot of this and this is more common to the younger generations that are like this. They're mocking their citizenships and just because they're able to move to another country and able to get a residency there, they're telling all shits of where the roots they've come from.

It's normal to criticize when you're seeing a lot of bad things going on. But it can't just turn into a better land on an instant, that's why I like those leaders that instead of taking time into making themselves good, they're showing what they're capable of and what they can do for their country.

I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

I think it's understandable and they don't have to choice, they don't have a place to go and it's easy to tell that they just have to move from here and there but not everyone is capable of that.

[Gozie51]

It is interesting how people from countries which are assumed to be rich can badmouth their own motherland, while at the same time there are waves of people trying to move there both legally and illegally.

Is like the feeling of something being better in your neigbhours compound because you are afar from it. However, no country is perfect and those citizens that feel bad about their country may have such feeling because of certain policy that they don't like. Like I have heard some people complain of US foreign policy and the drive to act as the watch dog of the world instead of utilizing such funds in the home. So this could be one area of criticism.

[OgNasty]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.
   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

What brought this on? Is there a particular event that you are referring to with this statement? The thing that immediate comes to mind is internet censorship, which has recently been embraced by the Canadian government. Immediately I wonder what they are trying to hide. The wildfire conspiracy? The covid hoax? Who knows… I just know it’s wrong and should be criticized.

[Wiwo]

In a real and ideal situation, those who criticize government are suppose to be those allowed to show what they have to offer because it may seem that they have better idea. I said ideal because assuming the system is not corrupt, so that they can genuinely offer something positive to growth of the country but the problem is when such person get into power or government and meet bad system, they eat their words and start doing the same thing that they have criticized or they are frustrated out of the system by those who are feeding from the corrupt system.

A vast majority of the problem lies in the system and just like you have said the action of the leader is mostly controlled by the system on the ground and most problems that we think are leadership problems are actually system problems and to start with, any country that you see it government losing legitimacy from the citizens such countries have one thing in common which are faulty constitutions weak institutions.

More also a lack of national developmental goals, all of which is what gave room to bad leadership since the system could be bastardized at will.

[Gallar]

there is absolutely nothing wrong in critizing your leader. criticism is part of democracy but when you call your country a zoo and all sorts of names and regret being a citizen, you have crossed the redline.

In a country that has a democratic system in it, it is indeed not a problem if the people express opinions and criticize a regulation set by the government that is not pleasing and does not make the people comfortable. The name is also a democratic country, which means that everyone who lives and is in that country has the right/can issue an opinion. But to issue dirty or insulting words towards the government or the country's leader, indeed this will definitely be strictly prohibited by every country, especially by countries that have a democratic system. But it cannot be denied, if the people are too annoyed with the government, for example, their opinion is not heard, or the government makes rules that are detrimental to society. From my personal experience, sometimes dirty words are often heard from the community.

   I also have no problem with some people's vituperation and hate over there country but to suddenly decide to serve the same country you hate is hypocrisy of the highest order. and such people will have nothing to offer.they want to make use of the government to gain there own personal subscription, if appointed at the end. Because there are enemies of the country.

To be honest, I didn't see the clear point written in your post, which I quoted. What I can catch from this writing, you seem to offend someone, who previously insulted a country, but in the end that person entered the government. Then what country do you mean, what country is it?
Your explanation is a bit unclear, so try to explain again so that it is clearer.
But here I will conclude, the point is you don't agree with the people you call hypocrites if you enter the government system. Because you think that in terms of personality and morals, this person is very inappropriate to be included in the ranks of the government (correct me if I'm wrong).

If my conclusion is correct, I also agree with that opinion. Because if people used to insult or insult the country's leaders or the government system, then people like that should be prevented from entering the government. Because at first glance it is clear that people like that really only want to benefit themselves.

[Gozie51]

In a real and ideal situation, those who criticize government are suppose to be those allowed to show what they have to offer because it may seem that they have better idea. I said ideal because assuming the system is not corrupt, so that they can genuinely offer something positive to growth of the country but the problem is when such person get into power or government and meet bad system, they eat their words and start doing the same thing that they have criticized or they are frustrated out of the system by those who are feeding from the corrupt system.

A vast majority of the problem lies in the system and just like you have said the action of the leader is mostly controlled by the system on the ground and most problems that we think are leadership problems are actually system problems and to start with, any country that you see it government losing legitimacy from the citizens such countries have one thing in common which are faulty constitutions weak institutions.

More also a lack of national developmental goals, all of which is what gave room to bad leadership since the system could be bastardized at will.

We have both identified that there is problem in leadership and this is especially in third world countinent although some of them have tried to put their system right like South Africa. But majority of the leaders in other countries don't want to cause a change to happen rather they want to keep benefitting from a bad situation, they rig themselves into power and want to subvert the constitution yet they don't want a military rule. They are civilian government in outlook but military in process and in their minds and because they have that military mentality to subjugate, they go after every of their critics that was not able to run to asylum and put them in jail without proper and public trier.

[Wiwo]

In a real and ideal situation, those who criticize government are suppose to be those allowed to show what they have to offer because it may seem that they have better idea. I said ideal because assuming the system is not corrupt, so that they can genuinely offer something positive to growth of the country but the problem is when such person get into power or government and meet bad system, they eat their words and start doing the same thing that they have criticized or they are frustrated out of the system by those who are feeding from the corrupt system.

A vast majority of the problem lies in the system and just like you have said the action of the leader is mostly controlled by the system on the ground and most problems that we think are leadership problems are actually system problems and to start with, any country that you see it government losing legitimacy from the citizens such countries have one thing in common which are faulty constitutions weak institutions.

More also a lack of national developmental goals, all of which is what gave room to bad leadership since the system could be bastardized at will.

We have both identified that there is problem in leadership and this is especially in third world countinent although some of them have tried to put their system right like South Africa. But majority of the leaders in other countries don't want to cause a change to happen rather they want to keep benefitting from a bad situation, they rig themselves into power and want to subvert the constitution yet they don't want a military rule. They are civilian government in outlook but military in process and in their minds and because they have that military mentality to subjugate, they go after every of their critics that was not able to run to asylum and put them in jail without proper and public trier.

I agree with that fact that,  third world countries are faced with a lot of challenges and they are not even ready to make any changes to improve the condition of the continent,  most African countries have similar challenges and that is because of their neo-colonizing and inability to develop a workable part that can bring African out of the overbearing challenges facing the continent,  there is no doubt that leadership have been identified as Africa biggest challenge.

And if we can get the right leaders that could figure out a way to fix the bastardized system and bring in new principles and policies that can change the face of things in Africa as a continent.

[BADecker]

a slap on the faces of patriotic citizens


... and a jack-boot on their necks.

[Hispo]

It is interesting how people from countries which are assumed to be rich can badmouth their own motherland, while at the same time there are waves of people trying to move there both legally and illegally.

Is like the feeling of something being better in your neigbhours compound because you are afar from it.

It is more complex than that, we are talking about people who is literally leaving their country out of despair for a better life, because corruption, crime, reckless economical choices and lack of opportunities in general have pushed them to take that path.

They have reached a point where they rather to risk their life in a dangerous travel to continue to keep going or die trying to provide for themselves and their families.
At least in Europe and the United States there is more law and order than in many of the African countries and Latin America, where one is at the mercy of corrupted police officers, who can arrest anyone, lock anyone up without a trial and even resort to torture, all of it just to milk money out the families, and that is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately.