Do you support Cindy Sheehan's antics in protesting the war in Iraq?

[Goobieman]

So when President Bush said "Bring it on!" to the terrorists and insurgents, which they did, and it resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. He was breaking the law.
He should be impeached.

Really.
Please - specify the law he broke.
This should be good.

 

[Saboteur]

Really.
Please - specify the law he broke.
This should be good.

Hey you tell me.

 

[Goobieman]

Hey you tell me.

Thats what I thought - you really don't have a clue about any of this.

 

[Saboteur]

I said nothing of the sort.
I said you can be acted against by the government and the 1st won't protect you.

And I didn't say anything about yelling fire in a theater.

And you are acting against me because I like having the 1st amendment around and support it's use.

Since we're playing a game of 'I'm saying what you said when you didn't say that', I'll go on by asking if you would like a copy of Mein Kumpf? You haven't quite grasped the nature of the politics of your favorite world leader.

 

[Saboteur]

Thats what I thought - you really don't have a clue about any of this.

Fine, he incited violence. It may not have happened in the U.S. but what if it did?

Plus you know I'm not being serious.

 

[Goobieman]

And I didn't say anything about yelling fire in a theater.

And you are acting against me because I like having the 1st amendment around and support it's use.

Since we're playing a game of 'I'm saying what you said when you didn't say that', I'll go on by asking if you would like a copy of Mein Kumpf? You haven't quite grasped the nature of the politics of your favorite world leader.

Whatever, dude. Buy a clue.

 

[Saboteur]

Whatever, dude. Buy a clue.

AWWW c'mon. Please enlighten us with more of your mental gianthood.

 

[Goobieman]

AWWW c'mon. Please enlighten us with more of your mental gianthood.

Its clear you dont want to be enlightened.

-The 1st protects you from the actions of the government,
-There are laws that the 1st does not protect you from because of the specifics of your speech.
-That there are such laws does not in any way mean that I, personally, must act against someone breaking said law -- after all, enforcement of the law is the government's job.

Now, if you want to argue that Bush broke the law when he said "bring it on", and should be impeached for it I suggest that YOU cite the law and show how Bush broke it -- else, you're just wasting bandwidth.

 

[Saboteur]

Its clear you dont want to be enlightened.

Oh but I do. I'm just sarcastic.

-The 1st protects you from the actions of the government,
-There are laws that the 1st does not protect you from because of the specifics of your speech.

What kind of laws please be specific.

-That there are such laws does not in any way mean that I, personally, must act against someone breaking said law -- after all, enforcement of the law is the government's job.

Then shut up. And quit going around asking people why they think they should be able to yell fire in a theater.

Now, if you want to argue that Bush broke the law when he said "bring it on", and should be impeached for it I suggest that YOU cite the law and show how Bush broke it

You sure are demanding for someone who doesn't back up their own position with facts, documents, links or articles.

Anyway, it was by your definition of how you think the 1st Amendment should work that I came to the conclusion that Bush broke the law by inciting terrorist violence with the provacative words he uttered when he said "bring it on". I realize that we are at war and he was speaking to our enemy but it wasn't our soldiers who payed for those words... It was the innocent civilians of Iraq, Afghanistan, England, Bali, Egypt, etc.

If he hadn't said those words would the terrorist attacks have occured on such a large scale in such a short amount of time?

I suppose you won't pay attention to this since I haven't posted the specific law but neither have you and you know what I am talking about. If you don't then you haven't read this and in turn won't respond.

-- else, you're just wasting bandwidth.

Bandwidth is not valuable.

 

[Goobieman]

What kind of laws please be specific.

The laws regarding reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, public nusance, etc -- they depend greatly on the effect of the offense and the locality in which it was committed.

Note that in all cases, the violated law deals with placing other people in danger, not a law that specifically bans yelling "fire!".

Then shut up. And quite going around asking people why they think they should be able to yell fire in a theater.

That was mature.
YOU asked me why I wasnt protesting the KKK as they break the law. I told you.
Why do you think that because I disagree with someone I shoudl go protest them?
You disagree w/ GWB -- why arent you standing outsude the White House?

You sure are demanding for someone who doesn't back up their own position with facts, documents, links or articles.

I'm not at all sure what I've saud that requires me to provide back-up.

Anyway, it was by your definition of how you think the 1st Amendment should work that I came to the conclusion that Bush broke the law by inciting terrorist violence with the provacative words he uttered when he said "bring it on". I realize that we are at war and he was speaking to our enemy

You effectively addressed your own issue. Good work.

 

[Saboteur]

The laws regarding reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, public nusance, etc -- they depend greatly on the effect of the offense and the locality in which it was committed.

Note that in all cases, the violated law deals with placing other people in danger, not a law that specifically bans yelling "fire!".

Aha? Now I see you're point.

That was mature.
YOU asked me why I wasnt protesting the KKK as they break the law. I told you.
Why do you think that because I disagree with someone I shoudl go protest them?
You disagree w/ GWB -- why arent you standing outsude the White House?

If I could afford to travel to D.C., take time off of work, and pay for a permit you bet I'd be in front of the white house!

But I can't so I go to a site called DebatePolitics.com and tick off the inhabitants by responding to posts and stating my opinion.

I'm not at all sure what I've saud that requires me to provide back-up.

I don't know what I said either but jeez it gets demanded of me even if it is for something I didn't even say.

You effectively addressed your own issue. Good work.

Well don't you think you're clever.

I didn't realize that all tact and diplomacy was suspended while a nation was at war. Great! So I can go on saying, "down with the U.S. government!" While wiping my ass with the Quran and burning a flag draped cross!

 

[Goobieman]

Great! So I can go on saying, "down with the U.S. government!" While wiping my ass with the Quran and burning a flag draped cross!

No. If you desacrate a Koran, the liberals will be all over you for ******* off the muslims.

 

[steen]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Freedom of Speech is limited in respect to speech which will cause immediate societal harm; such as incitement to revolution, riot, or violence, calling for the overthrow of the Government would certainly fall under that equation.

Yes, as I pointed out, such fascist mentality is beginning to be prevalent.

 

[Mikkel]

No. If you desacrate a Koran, the liberals will be all over you for ******* off the muslims.

Yeah, because desacating a Koran is the dumbest thing in the world to do. It's needlessly ******* off a religion who's most extreme wing is already doing its best to kill all of us. Why demonize the whole religion further?

If you desacrate a Koran the liberals will be all over you because it's a dumb@$$ thing to do, not because we're sticking up for Muslim extremism.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yeah, because desacating a Koran is the dumbest thing in the world to do. It's needlessly ******* off a religion who's most extreme wing is already doing its best to kill all of us. Why demonize the whole religion further?

If you desacrate a Koran the liberals will be all over you because it's a dumb@$$ thing to do, not because we're sticking up for Muslim extremism.

lmfao, there have been over 3.000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9-11-01 including young Indonesian girls getting their heads cut off, and the thing that made the Muslim population get upset was a picture of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, you know what? **** Muslims.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, as I pointed out, such fascist mentality is beginning to be prevalent.

Ya well that decision was made before Mussolini was ever born, perhaps you ought to leave police state America to a more free nation like the socialist Utopia of Venezuela. Go leave, we don't want you here.

 

[alphamale]

Sheehan is a grieving mother who is being cynically exploited by the liberal left, which will do anything in its increasingly-desperate hunger for political power.

 

[Goobieman]

Yeah, because desacating a Koran is the dumbest thing in the world to do. It's needlessly ******* off a religion who's most extreme wing is already doing its best to kill all of us. Why demonize the whole religion further?

If you desacrate a Koran the liberals will be all over you because it's a dumb@$$ thing to do, not because we're sticking up for Muslim extremism.

However, ******* on the bible, or defecating on a picture of Jesus -- and calling it "art" is OK -- after all, it only pisses off the Christians.

Right?

 

[Mikkel]

However, ******* on the bible, or defecating on a picture of Jesus -- and calling it "art" is OK -- after all, it only pisses off the Christians.

Right?

Wrong. I don't think it's right to do either one. (However, it is the right of any citizen of America to do either one.) It is true that defacating the Koran has a higher probability of creating an international incident then the defacation of a Bible, but someone who defacates either one will hear the same amount of grief from me.

 

[Goobieman]

Wrong. I don't think it's right to do either one. (However, it is the right of any citizen of America to do either one.) It is true that defacating the Koran has a higher probability of creating an international incident then the defacation of a Bible, but someone who defacates either one will hear the same amount of grief from me.

Remember that if you have the right to speak your mind, however offensive your opinion might be, you do not have the right to be free from being offended when someone else speaks -his- mind.

 

[Mikkel]

Remember that if you have the right to speak your mind, however offensive your opinion might be, you do not have the right to be free from being offended when someone else speaks -his- mind.

Oh, I know. I just think it's important that we discourage (not eliminate) people from unnecessarily ticking each other off. If we're going to offend someone, we better have a good reason for doing so.

I'm not looking at it from a legal or constitutional standpoint, but a practical one.
What do we have to gain from desacrating the Koran? Nothing.
What do we have to gain from desacrating the Bible? Nothing.

I'm do not support either of these practices. I'm merely pointing out that the potential consequences from desacrating the Koran are probably significantly worse, on an international level, than the consequences from desacrating a Bible.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Oh, I know. I just think it's important that we discourage (not eliminate) people from unnecessarily ticking each other off. If we're going to offend someone, we better have a good reason for doing so.

I'm not looking at it from a legal or constitutional standpoint, but a practical one.
What do we have to gain from desacrating the Koran? Nothing.
What do we have to gain from desacrating the Bible? Nothing.

I'm do not support either of these practices. I'm merely pointing out that the potential consequences from desacrating the Koran are probably significantly worse, on an international level, than the consequences from desacrating a Bible.

Certainly dropping a duece on the bible or Qu'ran is a bit overboard, but...

:drink here's to rabble rousers. :drink GOOD. This country needs people like Sheehan. Someone needs to wake people up from their TV induced slumber. I mean, it's just not a proper political event unless someone is arrested for not breaking the law after all.

 

[Saboteur]

No. If you desacrate a Koran, the liberals will be all over you for ******* off the muslims.

Yet Country music stars can write songs about putting boots in asses and manipulate photographs to make the lead singer of the Dixi Chics look like she's posing with Saddam.

You know, I've come to realize that our biggest enemy is ourselves. If we keep in-fighting we'll (the U.S.) just get left behind with nothing but a bankrupt economy and a starving military force stranded in the middle of the middle east.

 

[Goobieman]

Yet Country music stars can write songs about putting boots in asses and manipulate photographs to make the lead singer of the Dixi Chics look like she's posing with Saddam.

Liberals were all over them, too.
"Free speech" is OK so long as it's speech liberals agree with - said liberals don't say a word when EMINEM or Kayne West do such things.

You know, I've come to realize that our biggest enemy is ourselves. If we keep in-fighting we'll (the U.S.) just get left behind with nothing but a bankrupt economy and a starving military force stranded in the middle of the middle east.

You're right and wrong at the same time.

 

[Gardener]

During the Vietnam war, the antiwar movement was primarily based upon a desire to limit the loss of life rather than a support for communism.

When Cindy first came to public attention, it appeared thet her message was much like the dominant message during the Viet Nam era and she was approaching the situation based upon that simple message -- that she was a mother greiving for her son and didn't want more American's suffering the loss of loved ones. That is a respectable position as far as I'm concerned.

Once Buddy Spell got ahold of her, though, her rhetorec has shifted from that original message and she is now a spokesperson for the radical left, espousing knee jerk leftist dogma that goes well beyond the greiving for her son and has entered the territory of fifth column anti-americanism. I do not support that at all.

I think it is possible to be against the war without being against America, but few people in this particular anti-war movement seem to have figured that out.