wmw999 2,150 #101 June 8, 2004 QuoteAnd again the question about where the line is between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies is dodged. Why can't I get an answer? I've asked at least 20 Lefties this question and can't get an answer I don't believe I'm among the lefties you've asked. That said, there is no single line. That's not dodging the question, it's like saying there is no single definition of appropriate dress -- what's appropriate for the DZ won't work at many schools, and definitely not at most churches. Why are you looking for a line? Is it to point out inconsistencies in others, or so that you won't debate if people don't cross that line? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #102 June 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd again the question about where the line is between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies is dodged. Why can't I get an answer? I've asked at least 20 Lefties this question and can't get an answer I don't believe I'm among the lefties you've asked. That said, there is no single line. That's not dodging the question, it's like saying there is no single definition of appropriate dress -- what's appropriate for the DZ won't work at many schools, and definitely not at most churches. Why are you looking for a line? Is it to point out inconsistencies in others, or so that you won't debate if people don't cross that line? Wendy W. I think my question is very simple. Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies? Answer any way you like. I think I know why I'm not getting an answer but I'll keep that to myself for now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #103 June 8, 2004 QuoteAnd again the question about where the line is between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies is dodged. Here's your answer. There is no line. Political speech in any form should always be encouraged. Why don't you tell me where you think the line is? Or shall you dodge the question? Every claim you make about the "left-wing whackos" can be made in reverse about the right wing whackos. That's where the hypocrisy lies. Trying to claim one side is more adept at it than the other can only be done through bias. Anyone who sees things clearly would see that both sides have their equally efficient whackos, and that somewhere in the middle is the best path. Bottom line, GWB is a hard line right winger. He is not a moderate. He is not a compassionate conservative. He has an agenda and sticks to it. You like that agenda, so you like him. I don't like it, so I don't like him. I would rather have someone who tried to address the concerns of everyone. GWB claimed he was a uniter, not a divider. I've never seen such division between political sides of the spectrum before. And as far as Reagan goes, I didn't say a bad thing about him. We'll see what your comments are when Clinton dies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #104 June 8, 2004 QuoteWhere do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies? It depends on the situation. Are there enemies present? Do I think they're enemies, or do you, or do they? There's more to it than that, too. Your question is simple. But it's not answerable because I don't draw a line. Most people don't. It's like asking "what's the right thing to do on Tuesday?" And why didn't you answer my question? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #105 June 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd again the question about where the line is between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies is dodged. Here's your answer. There is no line. Political speech in any form should always be encouraged. Quote So in your view of things, the most vitriolic hate filled lies, and innuendo is O.K. regardless of who spews it out? Regardless of what position they hold? Regardless of what they say? Suppose a major Senator went on T.V. and told OBL "just hold on a little longer and we will get GWB out of office? Suppose that resulted in terrorist attacks on the U.S. in which the purpose was to influence our election? All thats O.K. with you? There is absolutely NO LINE someone could cross that would make you say "I think thats over the top"? Thanks for sharing your honest opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #106 June 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies? It depends on the situation. Are there enemies present? Do I think they're enemies, or do you, or do they? There's more to it than that, too. Your question is simple. But it's not answerable because I don't draw a line. Most people don't. It's like asking "what's the right thing to do on Tuesday?" And why didn't you answer my question? Wendy W. Because, I refuse to accept a question as an answer to a question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #107 June 8, 2004 QuoteThere is absolutely NO LINE someone could cross that would make you say "I think thats over the top"? Thanks for sharing your honest opinion. I never condoned lying, I condoned expressing any opinion. Other than that, that's correct. I don't believe in censoring people. And I don't believe in placing blame inappropriately. I don't blame GWB for the 9/11 attacks, I blame OBL. To try and claim that someone making a comment on TV regarding the election "resulted" in a terrorist attack is ridiculous. That's like saying that flushing the toilet an extra time yesterday resulted in a drought. It may be justification for the terrorist, but for you to justify the terrorism based on the free speech of your fellow countrymen sounds much more treasonous to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #108 June 8, 2004 QuoteBecause, I refuse to accept a question as an answer to a question Well, I gave you a direct answer. What's yours? QuoteWhere do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies? Or, to rephrase, where do you draw the line between healthy debate and excusing terrorists for their actions and shifting blame elsewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #109 June 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd again the question about where the line is between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies is dodged. Quote QuoteHere's your answer. There is no line. Political speech in any form should always be encouraged. Why don't you tell me where you think the line is? Or shall you dodge the question? How can I answer when you just said there was no line? QuoteEvery claim you make about the "left-wing whackos" can be made in reverse about the right wing whackos. That's where the hypocrisy lies. Trying to claim one side is more adept at it than the other can only be done through bias. Anyone who sees things clearly would see that both sides have their equally efficient whackos, and that somewhere in the middle is the best path. I disagree. Moderates never accomplish anything. QuoteBottom line, GWB is a hard line right winger. He is not a moderate. He is not a compassionate conservative. Funniest thing I've read all day. If you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle. I think you only see him that way because of your perspective on the political spectrum. QuoteHe has an agenda and sticks to it. Got to agree with you there. I guess thats what makes him a hard right winger. Someone who sticks to their principles. Quote You like that agenda, so you like him. Actually, I don't care for a lot of his agenda. I didn't support him until the primaries were over. QuoteI don't like it, so I don't like him. So is there a Republican you would support? QuoteI would rather have someone who tried to address the concerns of everyone. GWB claimed he was a uniter, not a divider. I've never seen such division between political sides of the spectrum before. I remember when GWB first became President. He tried so hard to extend an olive branch to the left. He even let Ted Kennedy write his education policy. What did he get in return? The same BS the Dems give every Republican President, thats what. As I recall, that was the Dems shot across the bow which effectively was the beginning of the end of civility. QuoteAnd as far as Reagan goes, I didn't say a bad thing about him. We'll see what your comments are when Clinton dies. I didn't say you did. I don't care much for what you are implying either. Pretty petty of you. I will probably have the same reaction I do when anyone dies. I can assure you it won't be like the hatefulness I hear from many on the left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #110 June 8, 2004 QuoteHow can I answer when you just said there was no line? So you agree with me? Or are you dodging the "simple question" that you posed and accused other of dodgin? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #111 June 8, 2004 QuoteIf you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle. I think you only see him that way because of your perspective on the political spectrum. And that's the funniest thing I've read all day. See the attachments. Look at the baseline first to see where well known historical icons sit on the chart. Then take a look at the world view and where GWB sits. Then take a look at the primaries and compare him to the democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #112 June 8, 2004 QuoteIf you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle QuoteWith regard to voter ideology, Kerry is favored over Bush among progressives (81.1%-12.3%), liberals (79.2%-12.1%) and moderates (55.0%- 30.1%), while Bush is favored over Kerry among conservatives (70.5% - 18.7%). -Zogby Zogby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #113 June 9, 2004 I think that you do not find many people in the "western" countries that “hate” Americans. However, you find a lot who are annoyed with them…. You will find a lot of people in the Muslim world who “hate” the US – mostly due to ideological/religious reason (having been indoctrinated all their lives that the US is the great Satan) and the US support for Israel. The “annoyance” in Europe and other “western” countries like OZ, is caused by “US arrogance” on 2 levels. One level is political, i.e. the foreign policy of the US, which behaves like a bulldozer and is often discussed in this forum. The other is on a personal level. One has just to read many of the comments made in this forum which shows great disregard towards non-Americans and total believe that anything American is always superior to everything else. (Quite similar to the mentality of the French). Think back to the Sydney Olympics and the behaviour of the US 4x100 meter relay athletics team after their win if you want to understand what type of American behaviour foreigners do not like. No other team from any other country would have done something like that.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #114 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow can I answer when you just said there was no line? So you agree with me? Or are you dodging the "simple question" that you posed and accused other of dodgin? I think the line is when your words have dramatic consequences that are detrimental to our National Security. To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Apparently you feel words should have no consequences which only proves what I have previously said. And as for your little charts, I don't know whether I agree with how the data is used to determine where one falls. I mean according to the chart, John Edwards is almost as far right as GWB. I don't think so. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #115 June 9, 2004 "Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?" You see, this one of the things I hate about Americans. Why do you guys insist on having predetermined prescription for every eventuality. There is no line with everything on one side being tickety boo, and a howling disaster on the other side. There is no black or white in this regard, its a very wide grey area that is neither black nor white. Its a wide area (as opposed to a distinct line), bordered on one side by the correct opinion that you voice above, the other side of the area is where suppression of truth and free speech lives. In between is a wide and ever varying area that we sit on when discussing world politics, affairs of state, etc. "To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. " Of course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. From the amateur dramatic production company that brought us Ethiopia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, we are proud to present Darfur.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #116 June 9, 2004 QuoteOf course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. Beat me to it. Was about to post the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #117 June 9, 2004 Quote"Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?" You see, this one of the things I hate about Americans. Why do you guys insist on having predetermined prescription for every eventuality. There is no line with everything on one side being tickety boo, and a howling disaster on the other side. There is no black or white in this regard, its a very wide grey area that is neither black nor white. Its a wide area (as opposed to a distinct line), bordered on one side by the correct opinion that you voice above, the other side of the area is where suppression of truth and free speech lives. In between is a wide and ever varying area that we sit on when discussing world politics, affairs of state, etc. "To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. " Of course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. From the amateur dramatic production company that brought us Ethiopia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, we are proud to present Darfur. You don't have the right to yell "fire" just because someone struck a match. Words have consequences just like actions do. It is a fact that the rhetoric by the left during the Vietnam War encouraged the Viet Cong in the same way it now encourages the terrorists. I have no doubt that the bombings in Spain were brought about by the same kind of rhetoric. I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why. Words have consequences. It's very sad you don't see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #118 June 9, 2004 "I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why." Ah, I see, terrorism is all caused by me challenging our leaders to be honest, and open, truthful even. Continued unrest around the world is down to me pointing out, back in march, that Uzbekistan was turning into another mire, or that people should maybe take a look at western Sudan, before its too late. Damn, I'm sorry, should have seen it coming, silly me. "Words have consequences." Absolutely, thats the whole point of them, words like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'clear and present danger', 'imminent threat to global stability'. Those words aren't causing any problems? mmm? Obviously not, it was us lefties all along......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #119 June 9, 2004 I believe that he's referring to the manner in which it is done. He's saying that there are limits even when free speach and expression are involved. You're trying to generalize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,150 #120 June 9, 2004 QuoteI think the line is when your words have dramatic consequences that are detrimental to our National Security And how exactly do you know when that is? I have a pretty small life. Why exactly would my words, particularly in a forum like dz.com, indicating my opinions have anything to do with national security (it doesn't need caps). Especially if those opinions simply indicate disagreement with the current president, and not our system of government? Only if people define any disagreement whatsoever as a hotbed ready for terrorism. Well, few people do, and just because they think they're right doesn't make them so. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #121 June 9, 2004 Quote"I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why." Ah, I see, terrorism is all caused by me challenging our leaders to be honest, and open, truthful even. Continued unrest around the world is down to me pointing out, back in march, that Uzbekistan was turning into another mire, or that people should maybe take a look at western Sudan, before its too late. Damn, I'm sorry, should have seen it coming, silly me. "Words have consequences." Absolutely, thats the whole point of them, words like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'clear and present danger', 'imminent threat to global stability'. Those words aren't causing any problems? mmm? Obviously not, it was us lefties all along...... Nice try at obfuscating my question. I've never said speech should be surpressed. I've said all along that I support healthy debate and disagreement with the Govt. The question I've asked is at what point does the healthy debate turn into encouraging our enemies? Yelling "fire" when there is a fire is one thing. In fact, I would argue if there is a fire, you don't need to let us know because we will detect it at the same time. Screaming "fire" because you want a better seat is quite different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mardigrasbob 0 #122 June 9, 2004 FIRE!!!!![/Red] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #123 June 9, 2004 Dude, did you really just write "tickety boo?"~.._ O..o > ---witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KATO33 0 #124 June 9, 2004 QuoteYou don't have the right to yell "fire" just because someone struck a match. Words have consequences just like actions do. It is a fact that the rhetoric by the left during the Vietnam War encouraged the Viet Cong in the same way it now encourages the terrorists. Could it be that the US underestimated the "fight in the dog" in Vietnam. What I’m saying is Let say hypothetically Poland invaded the US. Would your motivation come from ousting the invaders? Or what some Polish citizens of thought of their government involvement in the war? Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #125 June 9, 2004 If the U.S was invaded by another country and I thought we were losing the war, I would be very disheartened and fearful of would become of my life. If I started hearing about people in that other country tearing down their leader, criticizing everything he did. Calling him a moron ect. it would cause me to believe that if killing more of their troops I may be able to create enough political chaos, and other problems to get them to pull out, I would do so. I would be encouraged to fight on. Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are very aware of the elements in this country like Al Gore and others who have done whatever they can to tear down every effort GWB has put forward to end this war as soon as possible. I think everyone should think about what their words would mean to OBL, Sadr etc before they become so sanctimonious in their rhetoric. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Gravitymaster 0 #106 June 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhere do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies? It depends on the situation. Are there enemies present? Do I think they're enemies, or do you, or do they? There's more to it than that, too. Your question is simple. But it's not answerable because I don't draw a line. Most people don't. It's like asking "what's the right thing to do on Tuesday?" And why didn't you answer my question? Wendy W. Because, I refuse to accept a question as an answer to a question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #107 June 8, 2004 QuoteThere is absolutely NO LINE someone could cross that would make you say "I think thats over the top"? Thanks for sharing your honest opinion. I never condoned lying, I condoned expressing any opinion. Other than that, that's correct. I don't believe in censoring people. And I don't believe in placing blame inappropriately. I don't blame GWB for the 9/11 attacks, I blame OBL. To try and claim that someone making a comment on TV regarding the election "resulted" in a terrorist attack is ridiculous. That's like saying that flushing the toilet an extra time yesterday resulted in a drought. It may be justification for the terrorist, but for you to justify the terrorism based on the free speech of your fellow countrymen sounds much more treasonous to me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #108 June 8, 2004 QuoteBecause, I refuse to accept a question as an answer to a question Well, I gave you a direct answer. What's yours? QuoteWhere do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies? Or, to rephrase, where do you draw the line between healthy debate and excusing terrorists for their actions and shifting blame elsewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #109 June 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd again the question about where the line is between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies is dodged. Quote QuoteHere's your answer. There is no line. Political speech in any form should always be encouraged. Why don't you tell me where you think the line is? Or shall you dodge the question? How can I answer when you just said there was no line? QuoteEvery claim you make about the "left-wing whackos" can be made in reverse about the right wing whackos. That's where the hypocrisy lies. Trying to claim one side is more adept at it than the other can only be done through bias. Anyone who sees things clearly would see that both sides have their equally efficient whackos, and that somewhere in the middle is the best path. I disagree. Moderates never accomplish anything. QuoteBottom line, GWB is a hard line right winger. He is not a moderate. He is not a compassionate conservative. Funniest thing I've read all day. If you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle. I think you only see him that way because of your perspective on the political spectrum. QuoteHe has an agenda and sticks to it. Got to agree with you there. I guess thats what makes him a hard right winger. Someone who sticks to their principles. Quote You like that agenda, so you like him. Actually, I don't care for a lot of his agenda. I didn't support him until the primaries were over. QuoteI don't like it, so I don't like him. So is there a Republican you would support? QuoteI would rather have someone who tried to address the concerns of everyone. GWB claimed he was a uniter, not a divider. I've never seen such division between political sides of the spectrum before. I remember when GWB first became President. He tried so hard to extend an olive branch to the left. He even let Ted Kennedy write his education policy. What did he get in return? The same BS the Dems give every Republican President, thats what. As I recall, that was the Dems shot across the bow which effectively was the beginning of the end of civility. QuoteAnd as far as Reagan goes, I didn't say a bad thing about him. We'll see what your comments are when Clinton dies. I didn't say you did. I don't care much for what you are implying either. Pretty petty of you. I will probably have the same reaction I do when anyone dies. I can assure you it won't be like the hatefulness I hear from many on the left. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #110 June 8, 2004 QuoteHow can I answer when you just said there was no line? So you agree with me? Or are you dodging the "simple question" that you posed and accused other of dodgin? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #111 June 8, 2004 QuoteIf you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle. I think you only see him that way because of your perspective on the political spectrum. And that's the funniest thing I've read all day. See the attachments. Look at the baseline first to see where well known historical icons sit on the chart. Then take a look at the world view and where GWB sits. Then take a look at the primaries and compare him to the democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #112 June 8, 2004 QuoteIf you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle QuoteWith regard to voter ideology, Kerry is favored over Bush among progressives (81.1%-12.3%), liberals (79.2%-12.1%) and moderates (55.0%- 30.1%), while Bush is favored over Kerry among conservatives (70.5% - 18.7%). -Zogby Zogby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #113 June 9, 2004 I think that you do not find many people in the "western" countries that “hate” Americans. However, you find a lot who are annoyed with them…. You will find a lot of people in the Muslim world who “hate” the US – mostly due to ideological/religious reason (having been indoctrinated all their lives that the US is the great Satan) and the US support for Israel. The “annoyance” in Europe and other “western” countries like OZ, is caused by “US arrogance” on 2 levels. One level is political, i.e. the foreign policy of the US, which behaves like a bulldozer and is often discussed in this forum. The other is on a personal level. One has just to read many of the comments made in this forum which shows great disregard towards non-Americans and total believe that anything American is always superior to everything else. (Quite similar to the mentality of the French). Think back to the Sydney Olympics and the behaviour of the US 4x100 meter relay athletics team after their win if you want to understand what type of American behaviour foreigners do not like. No other team from any other country would have done something like that.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #114 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow can I answer when you just said there was no line? So you agree with me? Or are you dodging the "simple question" that you posed and accused other of dodgin? I think the line is when your words have dramatic consequences that are detrimental to our National Security. To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Apparently you feel words should have no consequences which only proves what I have previously said. And as for your little charts, I don't know whether I agree with how the data is used to determine where one falls. I mean according to the chart, John Edwards is almost as far right as GWB. I don't think so. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #115 June 9, 2004 "Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?" You see, this one of the things I hate about Americans. Why do you guys insist on having predetermined prescription for every eventuality. There is no line with everything on one side being tickety boo, and a howling disaster on the other side. There is no black or white in this regard, its a very wide grey area that is neither black nor white. Its a wide area (as opposed to a distinct line), bordered on one side by the correct opinion that you voice above, the other side of the area is where suppression of truth and free speech lives. In between is a wide and ever varying area that we sit on when discussing world politics, affairs of state, etc. "To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. " Of course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. From the amateur dramatic production company that brought us Ethiopia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, we are proud to present Darfur.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #116 June 9, 2004 QuoteOf course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. Beat me to it. Was about to post the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #117 June 9, 2004 Quote"Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?" You see, this one of the things I hate about Americans. Why do you guys insist on having predetermined prescription for every eventuality. There is no line with everything on one side being tickety boo, and a howling disaster on the other side. There is no black or white in this regard, its a very wide grey area that is neither black nor white. Its a wide area (as opposed to a distinct line), bordered on one side by the correct opinion that you voice above, the other side of the area is where suppression of truth and free speech lives. In between is a wide and ever varying area that we sit on when discussing world politics, affairs of state, etc. "To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. " Of course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. From the amateur dramatic production company that brought us Ethiopia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, we are proud to present Darfur. You don't have the right to yell "fire" just because someone struck a match. Words have consequences just like actions do. It is a fact that the rhetoric by the left during the Vietnam War encouraged the Viet Cong in the same way it now encourages the terrorists. I have no doubt that the bombings in Spain were brought about by the same kind of rhetoric. I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why. Words have consequences. It's very sad you don't see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nacmacfeegle 0 #118 June 9, 2004 "I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why." Ah, I see, terrorism is all caused by me challenging our leaders to be honest, and open, truthful even. Continued unrest around the world is down to me pointing out, back in march, that Uzbekistan was turning into another mire, or that people should maybe take a look at western Sudan, before its too late. Damn, I'm sorry, should have seen it coming, silly me. "Words have consequences." Absolutely, thats the whole point of them, words like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'clear and present danger', 'imminent threat to global stability'. Those words aren't causing any problems? mmm? Obviously not, it was us lefties all along......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #119 June 9, 2004 I believe that he's referring to the manner in which it is done. He's saying that there are limits even when free speach and expression are involved. You're trying to generalize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,150 #120 June 9, 2004 QuoteI think the line is when your words have dramatic consequences that are detrimental to our National Security And how exactly do you know when that is? I have a pretty small life. Why exactly would my words, particularly in a forum like dz.com, indicating my opinions have anything to do with national security (it doesn't need caps). Especially if those opinions simply indicate disagreement with the current president, and not our system of government? Only if people define any disagreement whatsoever as a hotbed ready for terrorism. Well, few people do, and just because they think they're right doesn't make them so. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #121 June 9, 2004 Quote"I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why." Ah, I see, terrorism is all caused by me challenging our leaders to be honest, and open, truthful even. Continued unrest around the world is down to me pointing out, back in march, that Uzbekistan was turning into another mire, or that people should maybe take a look at western Sudan, before its too late. Damn, I'm sorry, should have seen it coming, silly me. "Words have consequences." Absolutely, thats the whole point of them, words like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'clear and present danger', 'imminent threat to global stability'. Those words aren't causing any problems? mmm? Obviously not, it was us lefties all along...... Nice try at obfuscating my question. I've never said speech should be surpressed. I've said all along that I support healthy debate and disagreement with the Govt. The question I've asked is at what point does the healthy debate turn into encouraging our enemies? Yelling "fire" when there is a fire is one thing. In fact, I would argue if there is a fire, you don't need to let us know because we will detect it at the same time. Screaming "fire" because you want a better seat is quite different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mardigrasbob 0 #122 June 9, 2004 FIRE!!!!![/Red] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #123 June 9, 2004 Dude, did you really just write "tickety boo?"~.._ O..o > ---witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites KATO33 0 #124 June 9, 2004 QuoteYou don't have the right to yell "fire" just because someone struck a match. Words have consequences just like actions do. It is a fact that the rhetoric by the left during the Vietnam War encouraged the Viet Cong in the same way it now encourages the terrorists. Could it be that the US underestimated the "fight in the dog" in Vietnam. What I’m saying is Let say hypothetically Poland invaded the US. Would your motivation come from ousting the invaders? Or what some Polish citizens of thought of their government involvement in the war? Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #125 June 9, 2004 If the U.S was invaded by another country and I thought we were losing the war, I would be very disheartened and fearful of would become of my life. If I started hearing about people in that other country tearing down their leader, criticizing everything he did. Calling him a moron ect. it would cause me to believe that if killing more of their troops I may be able to create enough political chaos, and other problems to get them to pull out, I would do so. I would be encouraged to fight on. Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are very aware of the elements in this country like Al Gore and others who have done whatever they can to tear down every effort GWB has put forward to end this war as soon as possible. I think everyone should think about what their words would mean to OBL, Sadr etc before they become so sanctimonious in their rhetoric. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 5 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
PhillyKev 0 #110 June 8, 2004 QuoteHow can I answer when you just said there was no line? So you agree with me? Or are you dodging the "simple question" that you posed and accused other of dodgin? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #111 June 8, 2004 QuoteIf you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle. I think you only see him that way because of your perspective on the political spectrum. And that's the funniest thing I've read all day. See the attachments. Look at the baseline first to see where well known historical icons sit on the chart. Then take a look at the world view and where GWB sits. Then take a look at the primaries and compare him to the democrats. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #112 June 8, 2004 QuoteIf you think GWB is such a Hard Right Winger, then explain to me why he is in so much trouble with his core support which comes from the middle QuoteWith regard to voter ideology, Kerry is favored over Bush among progressives (81.1%-12.3%), liberals (79.2%-12.1%) and moderates (55.0%- 30.1%), while Bush is favored over Kerry among conservatives (70.5% - 18.7%). -Zogby Zogby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #113 June 9, 2004 I think that you do not find many people in the "western" countries that “hate” Americans. However, you find a lot who are annoyed with them…. You will find a lot of people in the Muslim world who “hate” the US – mostly due to ideological/religious reason (having been indoctrinated all their lives that the US is the great Satan) and the US support for Israel. The “annoyance” in Europe and other “western” countries like OZ, is caused by “US arrogance” on 2 levels. One level is political, i.e. the foreign policy of the US, which behaves like a bulldozer and is often discussed in this forum. The other is on a personal level. One has just to read many of the comments made in this forum which shows great disregard towards non-Americans and total believe that anything American is always superior to everything else. (Quite similar to the mentality of the French). Think back to the Sydney Olympics and the behaviour of the US 4x100 meter relay athletics team after their win if you want to understand what type of American behaviour foreigners do not like. No other team from any other country would have done something like that.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #114 June 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteHow can I answer when you just said there was no line? So you agree with me? Or are you dodging the "simple question" that you posed and accused other of dodgin? I think the line is when your words have dramatic consequences that are detrimental to our National Security. To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Apparently you feel words should have no consequences which only proves what I have previously said. And as for your little charts, I don't know whether I agree with how the data is used to determine where one falls. I mean according to the chart, John Edwards is almost as far right as GWB. I don't think so. Try again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #115 June 9, 2004 "Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?" You see, this one of the things I hate about Americans. Why do you guys insist on having predetermined prescription for every eventuality. There is no line with everything on one side being tickety boo, and a howling disaster on the other side. There is no black or white in this regard, its a very wide grey area that is neither black nor white. Its a wide area (as opposed to a distinct line), bordered on one side by the correct opinion that you voice above, the other side of the area is where suppression of truth and free speech lives. In between is a wide and ever varying area that we sit on when discussing world politics, affairs of state, etc. "To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. " Of course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. From the amateur dramatic production company that brought us Ethiopia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, we are proud to present Darfur.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #116 June 9, 2004 QuoteOf course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. Beat me to it. Was about to post the same thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #117 June 9, 2004 Quote"Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?" You see, this one of the things I hate about Americans. Why do you guys insist on having predetermined prescription for every eventuality. There is no line with everything on one side being tickety boo, and a howling disaster on the other side. There is no black or white in this regard, its a very wide grey area that is neither black nor white. Its a wide area (as opposed to a distinct line), bordered on one side by the correct opinion that you voice above, the other side of the area is where suppression of truth and free speech lives. In between is a wide and ever varying area that we sit on when discussing world politics, affairs of state, etc. "To put it in simpler terms for you: I don't think you have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. " Of course I do, especially when the place is on fire, or about to erupt in an inferno. Continuing your analogy, its even more pertinent when we have already sat through several theatre fires and nobody had the balls to do anything about it until it was too late. From the amateur dramatic production company that brought us Ethiopia, Kosovo, and Rwanda, we are proud to present Darfur. You don't have the right to yell "fire" just because someone struck a match. Words have consequences just like actions do. It is a fact that the rhetoric by the left during the Vietnam War encouraged the Viet Cong in the same way it now encourages the terrorists. I have no doubt that the bombings in Spain were brought about by the same kind of rhetoric. I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why. Words have consequences. It's very sad you don't see that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #118 June 9, 2004 "I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why." Ah, I see, terrorism is all caused by me challenging our leaders to be honest, and open, truthful even. Continued unrest around the world is down to me pointing out, back in march, that Uzbekistan was turning into another mire, or that people should maybe take a look at western Sudan, before its too late. Damn, I'm sorry, should have seen it coming, silly me. "Words have consequences." Absolutely, thats the whole point of them, words like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'clear and present danger', 'imminent threat to global stability'. Those words aren't causing any problems? mmm? Obviously not, it was us lefties all along......-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #119 June 9, 2004 I believe that he's referring to the manner in which it is done. He's saying that there are limits even when free speach and expression are involved. You're trying to generalize. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,150 #120 June 9, 2004 QuoteI think the line is when your words have dramatic consequences that are detrimental to our National Security And how exactly do you know when that is? I have a pretty small life. Why exactly would my words, particularly in a forum like dz.com, indicating my opinions have anything to do with national security (it doesn't need caps). Especially if those opinions simply indicate disagreement with the current president, and not our system of government? Only if people define any disagreement whatsoever as a hotbed ready for terrorism. Well, few people do, and just because they think they're right doesn't make them so. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #121 June 9, 2004 Quote"I think the U.S. will see some type of terrorist attack in October or early November in an attempt to influence our elections. If that happens, I will know the reason why." Ah, I see, terrorism is all caused by me challenging our leaders to be honest, and open, truthful even. Continued unrest around the world is down to me pointing out, back in march, that Uzbekistan was turning into another mire, or that people should maybe take a look at western Sudan, before its too late. Damn, I'm sorry, should have seen it coming, silly me. "Words have consequences." Absolutely, thats the whole point of them, words like 'weapons of mass destruction', 'clear and present danger', 'imminent threat to global stability'. Those words aren't causing any problems? mmm? Obviously not, it was us lefties all along...... Nice try at obfuscating my question. I've never said speech should be surpressed. I've said all along that I support healthy debate and disagreement with the Govt. The question I've asked is at what point does the healthy debate turn into encouraging our enemies? Yelling "fire" when there is a fire is one thing. In fact, I would argue if there is a fire, you don't need to let us know because we will detect it at the same time. Screaming "fire" because you want a better seat is quite different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #122 June 9, 2004 FIRE!!!!![/Red] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #123 June 9, 2004 Dude, did you really just write "tickety boo?"~.._ O..o > ---witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KATO33 0 #124 June 9, 2004 QuoteYou don't have the right to yell "fire" just because someone struck a match. Words have consequences just like actions do. It is a fact that the rhetoric by the left during the Vietnam War encouraged the Viet Cong in the same way it now encourages the terrorists. Could it be that the US underestimated the "fight in the dog" in Vietnam. What I’m saying is Let say hypothetically Poland invaded the US. Would your motivation come from ousting the invaders? Or what some Polish citizens of thought of their government involvement in the war? Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #125 June 9, 2004 If the U.S was invaded by another country and I thought we were losing the war, I would be very disheartened and fearful of would become of my life. If I started hearing about people in that other country tearing down their leader, criticizing everything he did. Calling him a moron ect. it would cause me to believe that if killing more of their troops I may be able to create enough political chaos, and other problems to get them to pull out, I would do so. I would be encouraged to fight on. Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are very aware of the elements in this country like Al Gore and others who have done whatever they can to tear down every effort GWB has put forward to end this war as soon as possible. I think everyone should think about what their words would mean to OBL, Sadr etc before they become so sanctimonious in their rhetoric. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
