And I'm saying this is nothing more than a paranoid accusation. You've still provided no evidence that I've been "swallowing propaganda" when my views contradict almost everything we watch and read in the media.
That IS where you are wrong. A welfare state that only interferes with 50% of the economy is a liberal system. It consists of both capitalist and socialist aspects. I stopped reading and watching British media after calls for nationalizing banks, capping private sector pay and returning to a 1970s labour model where trade unions hold the nation to ransom. This leans far more towards socialism than capitalism.
Like I said (I'm repeating myself over and over again), in a truly democratic society, I will always condemn protesting when people have official peaceful means to resolve issues. Not once have I ever seen a protest in a western nation with rational demands. No matter what the government does, there will always be a minority finding an excuse to complain about something. Peaceful protesting shouldn't be made illegal, but in a proven democratic society I will never respect it.
Because those were NOT proven democratic societies. A system in which certain minorities have no say is not democratic. I would completely condone protesting in Cuba, North Korea, Iran or any society in which totalitarian regime was enforced on the people. Comparing 21st century protests on bankers pay to 19th century fights for black rights is nonsensical.
1st paragraph - if you say so. you are totally wrong, but what's the point in arguing with you on that when you'll never admit to it?
2nd paragraph - "a liberal system" makes no sense. a liberal economic system means absolutely nothing. it could be absolutely anything. however, liberty as a political idea generally stems from the rise of the middle classes and the rise of capitalism. you totally fail to understand the economy in general and capitalism and socialism in particular if you are of the opinion that a capitalist system with certain welfare concessions is more socialist than capitalist. it is truly baffling that you claim that.
3rd/4th paragraph - demonstrating IS an official, peaceful method of resolving things. it is a key part of any democracy, and to argue otherwise is simply blind. you still haven't answered the question that i asked of you when i said that you yourself had said "there is more to a democratic system than voting every 4 or 5 years". what else is there? surely demonstrating is one thing?
as regards your final point, the american civil rights movement comes to mind. that wasn't so long ago. blacks could
vote at that time. your argument means that you are saying all the people who took part in civil rights demonstrations in the 60s, which led to greater fairness, etc, were in the wrong and were nothing but a bunch of whiners and complainers.
in any event, what is a proven democracy? is it whatever you say it is? is a totalitarian state whatever you define such a state as? is it democratic that when more people vote for one presidential candidate than his opponent, the opponent still gets elected?